The Supreme Court of India has taken notice of the definition of the Aravalli mountain range and its implications on the environment and ecosystems. The court had previously accepted a new definition of the Aravallis, which limited the range to hills of 100 meters or more in height with an inter-hill distance of 500 meters. However, this definition has been met with criticism and protests from environmentalists and citizens, who argue that it would shrink the geographical footprint of the range and leave vast stretches of land vulnerable to unregulated mining, construction, and development.
The court has now stayed its earlier order and indicated that it may constitute a high-level committee to conduct a comprehensive inquiry into the matter. The committee would examine critical questions, including whether the new definition would exclude nearly 90% of Rajasthan’s hill systems from legal protection. Environmentalists fear that the ambiguity and misinterpretation of judicial language could result in regulatory loopholes with irreversible ecological consequences.
The Aravallis are one of the world’s oldest mountain systems, stretching from northern to western India, and play a crucial role in protecting the region from desertification, dust storms, and climate change. They also support a wide range of biodiversity, including over 300 bird species and wildlife such as leopards. The range acts as a natural shield, nurturing groundwater aquifers, reducing dust storms, and moderating the climate.
The controversy surrounding the definition of the Aravallis has sparked widespread protests and concerns about the potential consequences of undermining the range. Environmentalists argue that degrading the Aravallis would jeopardize water security, agriculture, air quality, and the survival of future generations. The “Save Aravalli” movement has gained momentum, with citizens, students, and political parties marching in towns and cities to demand protection for the range.
The issue has also raised questions about the economic value of ecosystem services provided by the Aravallis, such as water recharge, carbon sequestration, and biodiversity habitat. If these services were assigned economic value, the financial gains from mining would likely shrink dramatically. The parallel with the Himalayan crisis, where warnings about melting glaciers were initially dismissed as alarmism, is telling. Today, the cost of denial is undeniable, and the consequences of inaction could be catastrophic.
The Supreme Court’s decision to revisit the definition of the Aravallis is a welcome move, and the stay order has calmed widespread fear and discontent. However, the final resolution lies ahead, and it is crucial that the government and judiciary assess all consequences, including ecological, hydrological, climatic, and social implications, before accepting any definition that may accelerate the degradation of the Aravallis. It is essential to err on the side of the environment and future generations, rather than gamble a billion-year-old shield for short-term profits.