No new Aravalli mining leases: Centre amid row

THe unification environs ministry on midweek directed Haryana, Rajasthan and gujerat to impose a strict ban on new mining leases across the Aravalli range, a direction that experts said is part of complying with a Supreme Court order in November to halt expansion until a comprehensive management blueprint for what is a critical mountain range in the region is finalised.In a statement issued on Wednesday, the ministry said it has instructed the Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education (ICFRE) to prepare a Management Plan for Sustainable Mining (MPSM) for the entire geological ridge, which extends from Gujarat to the National Capital Region. The directions implement the apex court’s November 20 judgment requiring a freeze on new leases until the plan is ready, and are aimed at stopping all unregulated mining activities across the range.The ministry’s directive mandates that the MPSM must identify specific zones where mining remains strictly prohibited based on ecological sensitivity and conservation priorities, while assessing the cumulative environmental impact and determining the region’s ecological carrying capacity.The plan will also outline restoration measures for areas damaged by previous unregulated activity.Once prepared, the plan will be placed in the public domain for wide stakeholder consultation.ICFRE has additionally been tasked with identifying “no-go” zones beyond those already prohibited by the Centre to ensure the geological continuity of the ridge is preserved. “This exercise by the Centre would further enlarge the coverage of areas protected and prohibited from mining in the entire Aravallis, keeping in mind the local topography, ecology and biodiversity,” the ministry said.Forest analyst Chetan Agarwal, however, dismissed the government’s announcement as “old wine in new bottles,” arguing that the ministry is merely restating obligations already legally imposed by the court.“The press release is a cleverly worded document... It just reiterates the old assertions,” Agarwal said. “Para 50 subsection (iv) of the SC judgment requires MoEF via ICFRE to make a mining plan for the ‘entire Aravallis’... Para 50 subsection (v) requires that till the Mining Plan is finalised, ‘no new mining leases should be granted’. So, to that extent, the MoEF news today is just reporting a step to implement the judgment, without mentioning that they are required to do so by the judgment.”The ministry, in its statement, added that “the Government of India stands fully committed towards long-term protection of the Aravalli ecosystem, recognising its critical role in preventing desertification, conserving biodiversity, recharging aquifers, and environmental services for the region.”The ministry has instructed state chief secretaries to ensure strict compliance regarding “core/inviolate areas” as designated in paragraph 7.4 of the technical committee’s report. States must also ensure compliance with recommendations in paragraph 8 of the report for mines already in operation. For existing mines, ongoing mining activities are to be regulated stringently, with additional restrictions, to ensure environmental protection and adherence to sustainable mining practices.However, the directive highlights exceptions carved out in paragraph 7.3.1, which allow for new leases involving critical and strategic minerals notified in the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, as well as atomic minerals notified in the Seventh Schedule of the MMDR Act 1957.HT reported on Wednesday that the new definition, which has raised widespread concerns about opening up the Aravallis to mining and other land use change, also makes way for the mining of critical such as lead, zinc, silver and copper ore, and atomic minerals across the entire mountain range.Wednesday’s directions come amid public outcry over the definition of the Aravallis accepted by the Supreme Court last month. The court adopted a definition limiting the Aravallis to landforms with an elevation of 100 metres or more from the “local relief”. According to this definition, the local relief is determined with reference to the lowest contour line encircling the landform, and the entire landform lying within that contour—together with the hill, its supporting slopes and associated landforms—is deemed part of the Aravalli Hills.In other words, only hills that rise at least 100 metres above the surrounding ground qualify as Aravallis. This elevation is measured from the base of each hill to its peak, potentially excluding numerous smaller hills, ridges and undulating landscapes across the range that do not meet this 100-metre height threshold, even though they form part of the continuous geological system.Critics warn this definition is far narrower than the previous slope-based criteria used, and approved in 2010, by the Forest Survey of India (FSI), potentially opening vast tracts of the mountain range to mining and real estate development. The FSI criteria was challenged by the Rajasthan high court in June 2015.Addressing the controversy, the ministry, in responding separately to HT, stated that in view of varying definitions adopted by different states and inconsistent standards for mining permissions, the Supreme Court directed the constitution of a new committee in May 2024 to evolve a uniform definition for Aravalli hills and ranges. The committee, comprising representatives from the ministry, FSI, the Central Empowered Committee and the Geological Survey of India, recommended the current 100-metre elevation standard.“It is clarified that the criterion of a 3-degree slope was already on record and had been specifically objected to by the state of Rajasthan. The ministry has never sought its modification,” the ministry said in response to questions by HT.The issue of illegal and unregulated mining in the Aravalli region has been under prolonged consideration of the Supreme Court through two connected cases: W.P. (Civil) No. 4677 of 1985 (M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India) and W.P. (Civil) No. 202 of 1995 (T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India).