The Supreme Court's acceptance of a narrow elevation-based definition of the Aravalli hills in 2025 threatened to render over 90% of the range legally mineable. Critically examine the tension between judicial reliance on technical expert committees and the ecological imperatives of protecting ancient landscapes.

Q. The Supreme Court's acceptance of a narrow elevation-based definition of the Aravalli hills in 2025 threatened to render over 90% of the range legally mineable. Critically examine the tension between judicial reliance on technical expert committees and the ecological imperatives of protecting ancient landscapes. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

The Aravallis, India's oldest fold mountains stretching across four states, function as a living barrier against Thar desertification and as the recharge spine of NCR's aquifers [1]. The 2025 definition controversy shows that expert-driven metrics aid judicial clarity, but cannot by themselves carry ecological purpose.

Merits of judicial reliance on expert committees - Courts lack technical competence in geomorphology; a uniform, satellite-mapped criterion replaced four states' divergent standards, ending definitional arbitrage by lessees. - A measurable threshold — a landform rising 100 m above local relief, with hills within 500 m clustered into a range — makes enforcement (drones, CCTV, weighbridges) administratively auditable [1]. - Expert input enabled operational safeguards: an absolute mining ban in protected areas, eco-sensitive zones, tiger reserves, wetlands and CAMPA sites, plus a freeze on new leases pending ICFRE's science-based Management Plan for Sustainable Mining (MPSM) [1].

Where the technical proxy collided with ecology - Elevation is a poor proxy for ecological value. Low ridges, scrub and grassland — leopard and hyena habitat and prime recharge zones — fail a height test yet perform the desertification-barrier function [1]. - A definition excluding the bulk of mapped hills converts a conservation instrument into a mining licence, inverting Articles 21 and 48-A. - Committee outputs are advisory inputs, not verdicts; the Court itself later noted its recommendations had been misconstrued, taking suo motu cognisance [2]. - Narrow definitions weaken India's Land Degradation Neutrality commitments and NCR's air quality.

Course correction The Court stayed its own order and constituted a high-powered committee under the ICFRE Director General for independent, time-bound review [3]; the Centre concurrently assured no new leases in ecologically sensitive stretches [4].

Expertise must inform judicial reasoning, not substitute for it. Where an ancient landscape is at stake, the precautionary principle should govern: definitions built on ecological function rather than elevation alone, adopted after public consultation on the MPSM, can align mineral needs with the Court's own environmental jurisprudence.

(~330 words)

Sources: 1. Aravalli Hills: Protecting Ecology and Ensuring Sustainable Development — PIB Factsheet — 100 m/500 m criteria, mining prohibition zones, lease freeze, MPSM, surveillance tools, desertification and recharge functions 2. Supreme Court takes suo motu cognisance on issue of definition of Aravalli Hills — Akashvani News — recommendations misconstrued; suo motu proceedings 3. SC stays its earlier judgement concerning change in definition of Aravalli Hills — Akashvani News — stay of the order; fresh expert committee headed by ICFRE Director General 4. SC ruling endorses Govt's efforts to protect Aravalli Range: Bhupender Yadav — Akashvani News — Centre's assurance on no new leases in ecologically sensitive areas