Aravali row: SC takes suo motu cognisance; CJI-led bench to hear case on Monday
The Supreme Court has taken suo motu cognizance of its November 20 order on the Aravali hills, registering a new case to address concerns raised by environmentalists. The previous ruling defined Aravali hills for mining purposes as landforms with 100m elevation, a definition critics argue will lead to extensive mining and damage the range's integrity.
Supreme Court
NEW DELHI: As the controversy over its November 20 order on the Aravali hills refuses to die down and environmentalists and citizens oppose the verdict, Supreme Court has taken suo motu cognisance of the issue and registered a case which will be taken up on Monday. The cause list put up on the Supreme Court website says suo motu civil case regarding 'Definition of Aravali Hills and Ranges and Ancillary Issue' will be taken up by a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices J K Maheshwari and A G Masih.
Aravalli Hills Row: Why Definition Battle Could Decide Mining Water Security And AQI In North India
Also read: Over 1,200 mining leases active in Aravalli districts across RajasthanThe apex court, in its Nov ruling, had accepted the expert committee's definition of Aravali Hills and Ranges in the context of mining as any landform located in the Aravali districts having an elevation of 100m or more, measured from the local relief.
Aravali Range has been defined as two or more Aravali Hills, located within 500m from each other.Also read: Amid row over 100m rule, govt asked Survey of India to map Aravalis based on itThe definition of Aravali Hills and Ranges was given by a committee comprising secretary, MoEFCC; secretaries of the department of forests of NCT, Haryana, Rajasthan and Gujarat; a representative from Forest Survey of India, central empowered committee, Geological Survey of India and joint secretary, MoEFCC.Raising questions on SC's ruling, environmentalists alleged that it would lead to massive mining as the activity would be allowed on hills with height less than 100m.
Aravalis would lose continuity and integrity, amicus had arguedDuring the hearing of the case, senior advocate K Parameshwar, who was assisting the court as amicus, had objected to the definition and contended that all hills below 100m would be opened up for mining and as a result the Aravali Hills and Ranges would lose their continuity and integrity. "If the definition as suggested by the Committee is accepted, it would totally endanger the environment and ecology of the mountains," he had submitted, which was also incorporated in the order.Against his submission, additional solicitor general Aishwarya Bhati had contended that if the definition of Aravali Hills and Ranges as suggested by the FSI (slope of 3 degree or more) is accepted, it would exclude large areas. If the definition suggested by the committee is adopted, she submitted, a larger area would be included as part of Aravali Hills and Ranges.