The Aravalli hills, a 670-kilometer mountain range stretching across northwestern India, are an ecological system that has shaped the region’s water, climate, and human settlement for millennia. However, the range is increasingly discussed as an administrative category, with ongoing controversy surrounding mining, legal definitions, and environmental regulation. In November 2025, the Supreme Court accepted a uniform definition of the Aravalli hills based on a 100-meter elevation threshold, which has been criticized for prioritizing height over ecological function.
The definition, which was intended to resolve ambiguities in mining restrictions, may exclude over 90% of the terrain historically recognized as part of the Aravallis from formal legal protection. This could have significant ecological consequences, as the excluded features function as windbreaks, micro-catchments, and corridors that connect fragmented wildlife habitats. The government’s subsequent ban on new mining leases in the Aravallis has been seen as a continuation of existing restrictions rather than a meaningful change.
The controversy surrounding the Aravallis is not just about mining, but also about the Indian state’s understanding of environmental responsibility and its ability to reconcile development with ecological restraint. The region’s economic realities, including the support of livelihoods through mining, must be acknowledged, but development must also reckon with the costs of ecological loss. The degradation of the Aravallis has direct and measurable consequences, including accelerated desertification, worsened air pollution, and declining groundwater recharge.
The debate over the Aravallis is ultimately about whether India can govern its ecological inheritance with honesty, humility, foresight, and restraint. The Environment Ministry’s assurances and reiteration of mining bans may offer temporary reassurance, but protection that depends on executive intent rather than robust, ecologically grounded definitions remains fragile. India’s Constitution, judicial precedent, and civilisational ethos recognize nature as a trust held for future generations, and the country should not settle for minimalist protection framed by administrative expediency.
The Aravallis’ survival now depends on political judgment, and history will remember whether a society chose stewardship over convenience and wisdom over short-sighted gain. The Indian state must internalize the lessons of environmental governance, recognizing the value of ecosystem services and the importance of social legitimacy in decision-making processes. The Aravalli debate is a moment of reckoning, where India can choose to prioritize long-term resilience over short-term gains and demonstrate its commitment to environmental responsibility.