Suo motu jurisdiction has increasingly been used to institute expert/high-powered committees on environmental matters. Examine the promise and pitfalls of this judicial approach with reference to the Aravalli Hills case.

Q. Suo motu jurisdiction has increasingly been used to institute expert/high-powered committees on environmental matters. Examine the promise and pitfalls of this judicial approach with reference to the Aravalli Hills case. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

Acting under Article 32 suo motu, the Supreme Court in In Re: Definition of Aravalli Hills and Ranges (Suo Motu WP (C) No. 10 of 2025) constituted a High-Powered Committee (HPC) in May 2026 [1]. Such committees fill a genuine regulatory vacuum, but their record reveals both institutional promise and structural limits.

Promise of the approach - Fills a regulatory gap: no uniform definition of "Aravalli Hills" existed across four states, leaving mining regulation open to evasion; the Court compelled a common policy standard [2]. - Injects technical expertise: the earlier MoEFCC-led committee drew on the Forest Survey of India, Geological Survey of India and the Central Empowered Committee, producing a measurable landform test — hills of 100 m above local relief, ranges as such hills within 500 m [2]. - Secures ecological public interest: it protected the Aravallis' role as a barrier against desertification, groundwater recharge zone and biodiversity habitat, ordering a freeze on new leases pending a Mining Plan for Sustainable Mining [2]. - Enables participation: the HPC invited representations from states, conservationists, villagers, farmers, mine workers and lessees within a 21-day window [1].

Pitfalls of the approach - Judicial policy-making: defining a landform is an executive-scientific function; its migration to the Court reflects executive default rather than judicial competence. - Instability of outcomes: the November 2025 definitional order was stayed by the Court itself weeks later, and a fresh committee ordered — leaving states and lessees in prolonged uncertainty [2]. - Livelihood costs: a blanket moratorium burdens mine workers and dependent local economies without a statutory rehabilitation framework. - Accountability deficit: committees report to the Court, not to Parliament or state legislatures, weakening federal consultation and democratic scrutiny.

Suo motu committees are therefore a valuable second-best — effective at breaking regulatory deadlock, weaker at sustaining durable policy. The lasting solution lies in codifying the Aravalli definition and the sustainable mining plan through MoEFCC rules and state legislation, so that judicially catalysed standards mature into executive law, advancing SDG-15 on land degradation neutrality.

(~330 words)

Sources: 1. Press Information Bureau, MoEFCC — "Supreme Court constituted High-Powered Committee invites Responses from Public on Matters relating to the Aravalli Hills and Ranges" (21 July 2026) — HPC constitution under Suo Motu WP (C) No. 10 of 2025, May 2026 order, stakeholder consultation window 2. Press Information Bureau Factsheet — "Aravalli Hills: Protecting Ecology and Ensuring Sustainable Development" — 100 m/500 m definition, expert committee composition, mining-lease freeze and MPSM, ecological significance, stay of the November 2025 order