The Aravalli Verdict and India's Green Constitutionalism: A Watershed Moment in Ecological Jurisprudence”
On December 29, 2025, the Supreme Court of India stayed its own November judgment on the definition and regulatory regime governing the Aravalli Hills and Ranges, holding that “clarification is necessary.” The Vacation Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Augustine George Masih, took suo motu cognisance of the controversy that followed its earlier ruling and placed the decision in abeyance (SMW(C) No. 10/2025). This rare act of judicial self-correction reflects not merely procedural caution but a deeper recalibration of environmental governance, where ecological consequences, scientific uncertainty and constitutional values intersect. The stay has re-opened a fundamental debate as to how should courts define and protect complex natural systems without reducing them to technical abstractions that risk hollowing out substantive environmental safeguards?
Background of the widespread disquiet
In its November 20, 2025, judgment (I.A. NO.105701 OF 2024) pronounced by the Bench comprising of Justice B.R. Gavai, (the then Chief Justice of India), Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice N.V. Anjaria had accepted the recommendations of a committee constituted under the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change to evolve a uniform definition of the Aravalli Hills. The criteria adopted an elevation-based approach wherein the landforms rising 100 metres or more above local relief were to be treated as Aravalli hills, and two or more such hills within 500 metres were to constitute an Aravalli range. The intention was to bring regulatory clarity across Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan and Gujarat, where differing state policies had long complicated mining regulation. The definition immediately triggered concern among environmental experts, lawyers and civil society groups. The core apprehension was that such rigid criteria could exclude vast stretches of ecologically critical terrain that do not meet the height threshold but nonetheless perform vital functions such as groundwater recharge, climate moderation and habitat connectivity. Reports suggested that a large proportion of the Aravalli landscape might fall outside the protective net, potentially opening the door to renewed mining and development pressures. What began as an attempt at uniformity thus evolved into a controversy over ecological dilution.
Significance of the Stay order and the implications of “Clarification Is Necessary”
Acknowledging these concerns, the Supreme Court stayed both the committee recommendations and its own directions flowing from the November judgment. The Bench observed that the issues raised required clarification and that an independent expert assessment was necessary to examine the implications of the adopted definitions. The Court indicated that a fresh expert committee would be constituted to provide a holistic evaluation of the ecological and geological realities of the Aravalli system. The matter has been listed for further hearing on January 21, 2026, with notices issued to the Union Government and the concerned States. Until then, the earlier order remains in abeyance. The decision of the Supreme Court to take suo motu cognisance of the matter is itself significant. It reflects a recognition that environmental governance often suffers from institutional inertia and fragmented regulation, and that constitutional courts may have to step in when systemic ecological interests are at risk. Suo motu intervention in environmental matters has historically been justified on the ground that environmental harm affects diffuse and voiceless interests, cutting across generations and communities. By reopening the Aravalli issue, the Court has reaffirmed its role as a constitutional sentinel for environmental justice rather than a mere arbiter of inter-party disputes. A central theme emerging from the stay is the relationship between law and science. Environmental adjudication inevitably operates at the edge of scientific uncertainty. Yet, as the Aravalli episode shows, legal categories that are not firmly grounded in ecological science risk becoming instruments of inadvertent harm. The Court's emphasis on a fresh expert committee suggests an awareness that environmental protection cannot be reduced to cartographic or metric exercises. Landscapes are ecological continuums, not just elevations on a map. The challenge for courts is to translate scientific complexity into workable legal standards without flattening ecological realities. This moment therefore reflects a broader shift towards evidence-based environmental adjudication, where judicial authority is complemented, not substituted, by scientific expertise.
The Constitutional Dimension
In constitutional terms, this pause is extraordinary. It signals a willingness of the apex court to revisit its own reasoning when confronted with the possibility that a judicially endorsed framework may undermine environmental protection rather than advance it. The Aravalli Range is not merely a geographical feature but a constitutional concern. Among the oldest mountain systems in the world, the Aravallis act as a natural barrier against desertification, sustain groundwater aquifers in arid regions, and serve as ecological buffers for rapidly urbanising belts, including Delhi-NCR. Their degradation directly affects water security, air quality, climate resilience and biodiversity. Indian constitutional law places such natural assets within a framework of protection through Articles 48A and 51A(g), which impose duties on the State and citizens to protect the environment. Over time, the Supreme Court has read these obligations into Article 21, recognising a right to a healthy environment as intrinsic to the right to life. Seen thus, any legal classification that governs the Aravallis operates in the shadow of fundamental rights. The stakes are not administrative convenience but constitutional fidelity.
Re-emphasis on the Foundational Principles of Environmental Justice
The stay also brings into sharp focus three foundational doctrines of Indian environmental jurisprudence. First, the public trust doctrine holds that natural resources are held by the State in trust for the people and cannot be frittered away for private exploitation. The Aravallis, as life-supporting ecological systems, are quintessential trust assets. Second, the precautionary principle mandates that where there is a risk of serious or irreversible environmental harm, lack of complete scientific certainty should not be a reason to weaken protection. A rigid height-based definition that risks excluding ecologically vital areas runs counter to this logic. Third, the principle of sustainable development requires balancing economic activity with ecological preservation, ensuring that present development does not compromise the needs of future generations. Opening fragile landscapes to mining under narrow definitions threatens to tilt this balance decisively towards short-term extraction. The Court's stay implicitly acknowledges that the earlier framework may not have adequately internalised these doctrines.
Way Forward: Regulatory Coherence in Trans-Boundary Ecological Systems
The Aravallis cut across multiple States, each with distinct political economies and regulatory priorities. While a uniform definition promises coherence, it also raises federal concerns about ignoring local ecological specificities. Environmental federalism in India requires a delicate balance: national constitutional standards must guide protection, but regional realities must shape implementation. The Court's reconsideration opens space to rethink how cooperative federalism can operate in environmental governance, especially for transboundary ecological systems like mountain ranges, rivers and forests. The Supreme Court's stay of its own Aravalli verdict is more than a procedural interlude. It is a moment of jurisprudential introspection. Rarely does the Court pause to reassess a recently delivered environmental ruling in response to public and expert concern. In doing so, it has reaffirmed that environmental adjudication is not static but adaptive, responsive to evolving knowledge and democratic voice. At a time when India faces mounting ecological pressures (from water stress to climate vulnerability) this willingness to recalibrate may well define the future trajectory of environmental constitutionalism. The Aravalli controversy ultimately raises a deeper question: can environmental law rise above technical classifications to reflect the constitutional vision of ecological stewardship? The Supreme Court's stay suggests that it must. How the Court resolves this issue in the coming months will shape not only the fate of one of the world's oldest mountain systems but also the contours of India's environmental jurisprudence. If approached with constitutional seriousness, scientific rigour and doctrinal coherence, the Aravalli case may become a landmark in affirming that in India's constitutional order, nature is not a resource to be narrowly defined, but a trust to be robustly protected.
References
https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/1995/2997/2997_1995_1_1502_66178_Order_20-Nov-2025.pdf
https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/75317/75317_2025_1_5_67202_Order_29-Dec-2025.pdf
https://www.pib.gov.in/FactsheetDetails.aspx?Id=150596®=3&lang=2
The Author Is An Assistant Professor At The School Of Law, UPES (Dehradun)
Views Are Personal