1. Heading of the Order
The order is titled "In Re: Definition of Aravalli Hills and Ranges and Ancillary Issues", issued by the Supreme Court of India in its suo motu writ jurisdiction. It is recorded under Item No. 5, Court No. 1, Section PIL-W.

Citation: In Re: Definition of Aravalli Hills and Ranges and Ancillary Issues, Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 10/2025, Supreme Court of India, Order dated 29.12.2025.

2. Related Laws and Legal Framework
While the order does not cite specific statutory provisions, it operates within the broader framework of:

• The constitutional mandate for environmental protection under Article 48A (Directive Principles) and Article 51A(g) (Fundamental Duty).

• The judicial powers of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and Article 142 to enforce fundamental rights and ensure complete justice.

• Environmental jurisprudence established in previous judgments concerning the Aravalli region, including the Court’s earlier orders dated 09.05.2024 and the judgment dated 20.11.2025.

• The role of expert committees under the supervision of the Court, particularly referencing the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) and the Forest Survey of India (FSI).

3. Basic Order Details

• Case Number: Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 10/2025

• Date of Hearing: 29 December 2025

• Coram: Vacation Bench comprising the Hon’ble Chief Justice, Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.K. Maheshwari, and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masth.

• Key Counsel: Solicitor General Mr. Tushar Mehta, ASG Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Senior Advocate Ms. Anitha Shenoy, among others.

4. Facts of the Case
The Aravalli range, described as the "green lungs" of Northwestern India, has faced severe ecological degradation due to unchecked mining, deforestation, and urbanization. Historically, four states—Delhi, Rajasthan, Haryana, and Gujarat—adopted divergent definitions of the Aravalli's territorial extent, leading to regulatory inconsistencies. In response, the Supreme Court, vide order dated 09.05.2024, constituted a committee to formulate a uniform definition of the Aravalli Hills and Ranges. This committee submitted its report on 03.10.2025, recommending a definition based on 100-meter elevation and a 500-meter proximity between hills. The Court accepted this definition and issued directions on 20.11.2025, including a prohibition on new mining leases in the defined area and the preparation of a Mine Plan and Sustainability Management (MPSM).

5. Issues Identified by the Court
The Court identified several critical ambiguities and concerns following its earlier judgment:

• Whether the 500-meter proximity criterion artificially narrows the protected area and excludes ecologically contiguous terrain.

• Whether the 100-meter elevation threshold excludes a significant number of hills (e.g., only 1,048 out of 12,081 hills in Rajasthan qualifying), thereby stripping them of protection.

• Whether the definition creates regulatory gaps that could permit unregulated mining in excluded areas.

• Whether the directions for sustainable mining within the defined area are ecologically sound.

• The need to address public and expert criticism regarding potential misinterpretation and improper implementation.

6. Ratio Decidendi and Reasoning of the Court
The Court held that prior to implementing the committee’s report or the directions dated 20.11.2025, an independent, expert-led reassessment is essential to resolve ambiguities and ensure ecological integrity. The reasoning includes:

• The Court acknowledged that while no "cogent evidence" had been presented to overturn the committee’s findings, prima facie ambiguities and significant public dissent warranted further scrutiny (para 7–8).

• It emphasized the precautionary principle and the need to prevent "irreversible administrative or ecological actions" based on a potentially flawed definition (para 12).

• The Court highlighted the structural paradox in the definition: a restrictive geographical scope might inadvertently broaden "non-Aravalli" areas, facilitating unregulated mining (para 9(i)–(ii)).

• It recognized the necessity of a holistic, scientific evaluation to determine whether ecological continuity is compromised by the 500-meter gap rule and the 100-meter elevation criterion (para 9(iii)–(iv)).

7. Judicial Analysis and Core Principles of the Order

A. Suspension of Previous Directions and Interim Stay
The Court ordered that all recommendations of the committee and directions dated 20.11.2025 be kept in abeyance until the proceedings reach logical finality (para 12). This interim stay ensures no new mining leases or renewals are granted based on the 2010 FSI report or the new definition without the Court’s prior permission (para 13).

B. Constitution of a High-Powered Expert Committee
The core of the order is the directive to constitute a High-Powered Expert Committee to conduct a comprehensive assessment (para 10). The committee’s mandate includes:

• Enumerating regions covered and excluded under the proposed definition.

• Analyzing whether sustainable mining within demarcated areas would cause ecological harm.

• Assessing the risk of degradation in excluded areas.

• Conducting a multi-temporal evaluation of short- and long-term environmental impacts.

C. Addressing Regulatory and Ecological Gaps
The Court underscored that the definition must not undermine the ecological integrity of the entire Aravalli range. It pointed to the need for a "measured" assessment, including precise elevation measurements of all hills, to avoid a regulatory lacuna (para 9(iv)). The order reflects a jurisprudential shift towards proactive, science-based judicial review in environmental matters.

D. Involvement of Stakeholders
The Court directed notices to the Union of India and the four state governments, and requested assistance from the Attorney General, Solicitor General, Amicus Curiae, and the Central Empowered Committee (para 11). This ensures all stakeholders are heard before finalizing any definition or mining policy.

8. Final Outcome and Directions

1. Stay on Implementation: The committee’s report and Court’s directions dated 20.11.2025 are suspended.

2. Expert Committee: A High-Powered Expert Committee will be formed to examine the definition and its ecological implications.

3. Interim Mining Ban: No new mining leases or renewals in the Aravalli region (as per 2010 FSI report) without Court permission.

4. Next Hearing: The matter is listed before the Green Bench on 21.01.2026 for further proceedings.

9. Conclusion
This order represents a judicial recalibration aimed at balancing environmental conservation with regulatory clarity. By prioritizing independent expert evaluation and suspending earlier directions, the Supreme Court reaffirms its role as a guardian of ecological integrity under the public trust doctrine. The outcome will significantly influence mining regulations, environmental policy, and the long-term protection of the Aravalli range.