Source: IE
Subject: Polity
Context: The Supreme Court has stayed its November 20 judgment that accepted a 100-metre elevation criterion for defining the Aravalli hills, amid nationwide protests by environmental groups.
About Supreme Court stay on Aravallis Judgment:
What it is?
- The stay pauses the Court’s earlier acceptance of the Union government’s height-based definition of the Aravalli hills (landforms ≥100 m above local relief) for regulating mining.
- The interim order restores status quo ante, preventing immediate regulatory dilution while the Court re-examines ecological and constitutional implications.
History of Supreme Court interventions on Aravallis:
- Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1995–ongoing): Expanded the definition of “forest” beyond records to ecological characteristics, bringing Aravalli forests under judicial protection and regulating mining and construction.
- M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1985–ongoing): Became the principal vehicle for Aravalli protection in Delhi–Haryana, leading to bans on illegal mining, construction controls, and demolition of unlawful real estate.
- Mining prohibitions (1996–2002): The Court banned mining in parts of Faridabad and Haryana Aravallis based on expert reports (HPCB, NEERI), recognising irreversible ecological damage.
- 2010 FSI scientific survey order: Rejected the 100-metre height rule and directed FSI to map the entire Aravalli range using scientific parameters, leading to the 3-degree slope + buffer criterion.
- 2018 ‘vanished hills’ intervention: Acting on CEC findings that 31 of 128 hills had disappeared, the Court ordered immediate stoppage of illegal mining, prioritising ecology over royalty revenue.
- Delhi Ridge protection (2023–2025): Recognised the concept of “morphological ridge”, barred land allotment, halted tree felling, and ordered statutory backing for the Delhi Ridge Management Board.
Judgment conundrum:
- Scientific reductionism: A single elevation threshold ignores low-relief hills, pediments and ridges that perform vital ecological functions like groundwater recharge and climate moderation.
- Departure from functional ecology: Earlier jurisprudence assessed landscapes by ecological function, not numerical metrics—raising concerns of doctrinal inconsistency.
- Article 21 implications: As held in Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991), the right to life includes a right to a healthy environment; regulatory dilution directly implicates this right.
- Precautionary principle conflict: Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum (1996) mandates caution where environmental harm is irreversible; the height-based test risks exposing fragile zones.
- Public trust doctrine: Under M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997), the State is a trustee of natural resources—narrow definitions enabling exploitation may breach this fiduciary duty.
Implications of the stay:
- Regulatory pause on mining expansion: The stay halts immediate applicability of the 100-metre rule, preventing mining in lower Aravalli landforms until ecological and legal issues are finally adjudicated.
- Restoration of ecological safeguards: It temporarily revives earlier function-based protections evolved through Godavarman and M.C. Mehta orders that treated the Aravallis as an integrated ecological system.
- Judicial reassertion of oversight: The Court signals that environmental governance cannot be driven solely by executive convenience and remains subject to continuous judicial scrutiny.
- Strengthening constitutional scrutiny: The stay allows reassessment of the definition against Articles 14, 21, 48A and 51A(g), reinforcing the link between ecology, equality and the right to life.
- Federal flexibility preserved: States retain the space to apply stricter, region-specific safeguards, preventing a uniform definition from weakening local environmental protection.
Way ahead:
- Adopt function-based ecological criteria: Aravallis should be defined using slope, geomorphology, hydrology and biodiversity, reflecting ecological role rather than a single elevation threshold.
- Codify scientific mapping: The FSI–CEC scientific methodology should be given statutory backing under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 to ensure uniform, evidence-based regulation.
- Embed the precautionary principle: Any reclassification must follow cumulative impact assessments, recognising that ecological damage in fragile landscapes is often irreversible.
- Strengthen single-window governance: Bodies like the Delhi Ridge Management Board should be empowered with clear authority and NGT oversight to avoid regulatory fragmentation.
- Align development with conservation: Sustainable mining should be exception-based, allowing limited activity only where ecological integrity and long-term public interest are demonstrably protected.
Conclusion:
The stay reflects the Supreme Court’s enduring role as a guardian of constitutional environmentalism. Aravallis’ value lies in their ecological function, not elevation. Lasting protection demands science-led definitions, precautionary governance, and fidelity to constitutional duties over administrative convenience.
Secure answer writing practice question
