Protests have erupted across the northern part of the country after the nation's top court redefined the Aravalli hills – among the planet's most ancient geological formations stretching across the states of Rajasthan, Haryana, Gujarat, and Delhi.
According to the fresh parameters, approved by the court based on federal government suggestions, an Aravalli hill is any geographical feature with a minimum elevation of 100 metres (328 ft) from the adjacent land. Two or more such hills within 500 metres of each other, along with the land between them, are classified as an Aravalli range.
Environmentalists argue that classifying Aravalli hills based on elevation could leave numerous lower, scrub-covered but vitally important hills vulnerable to quarrying and development.
The federal government, on the other hand, states that the revised definition is intended to enhance oversight and bring uniformity and not weaken protections.
Why are People Protesting?
Over the past few days, peaceful protests took place in cities including Gurugram and Udaipur, led by local residents, farmers, green activists, and, in some cases, lawyers and political groups.
An organizing member of a prominent environmental group stated that the new definition threatens to compromise the critical role of the Aravalli range in "halting desert expansion, recharging groundwater and safeguarding local economies" in the northwestern region.
The shorter, vegetated hills perform a crucial function in preventing desertification, recharging groundwater and supporting livelihoods according to experts.
"This mountain system must not be categorized by height alone, but by its ecological, geological and climatic purpose," noted an ecology advocate involved in the movement to save the Aravallis.
He said that, internationally, mountain ranges are classified by the roles they play, not by arbitrary elevation thresholds.
"Any feature that is geologically part of the Aravalli system and plays a critical role in ecology or preventing desertification must be acknowledged as part of the range, irrespective of its height."
Protesters are calling for that the government delineate Aravalli areas using scientific criteria, encompassing geography, biodiversity, animal corridors and environmental durability.
One activist warned that the court's new definition might promote mining, construction and commercial activity, increasing the threat of ecological damage.
Political opponents have stepped up criticism, warning that the new definition could cause significant environmental degradation.
A senior politician said that protecting the Aravallis is "inseparable from Delhi's survival." A different official described the range the state's "lifeline," adding that without it, "the entire area up to Delhi would have turned into a desert."
What Does the Government Say?
India's central government has sought to downplay these apprehensions.
In a recent statement, it asserted the new definition is intended to bolster governance and create standardization, noting that a single, objective definition was needed to regulate mining consistently across states.
It added that the new definition covers the whole mountainous region – including slopes, related features, and intervening areas – clearly safeguarding hill clusters and their connections.
The national environment department said it is wrong to presume that mining will be allowed on all landforms under 100 metres.
The government states areas inside the Aravalli hills or ranges are excluded from new mining leases, while current operations can continue if they adhere to sustainable mining norms.
It noted that mining remains banned in core "inviolate" areas – reserved woodlands, environmentally fragile zones, and wetlands – except for certain essential, national security, and nuclear minerals permitted by law.
The Environment Minister said only about 2% of the 147,000 sqkm Aravalli range might be open to extraction, and only after comprehensive assessments and formal clearance.
Nevertheless, several of the protesting groups contend that demonstrations will continue and that they are considering judicial avenues to challenge the court's new definition.
