Protect the Aravallis, don’t rush the assessment: Stakeholders urge SC panel

By A Representative 

With the August 31 deadline set by the Supreme Court approaching, independent experts, conservationists, farmer representatives and Adivasi leaders have urged the Supreme Court-appointed High-Powered Committee on the Aravallis to seek an extension to undertake a comprehensive scientific assessment and a more inclusive public consultation process.

The representations were made in recent days to the Committee, constituted in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 10 of 2025, amid concerns that its field visits and consultations have not adequately covered the 700-kilometre Aravalli range or communities affected by mining, stone crushing and ecological degradation.

The Committee visited nine districts across Delhi, Haryana and Rajasthan between August 6 and 11 and held public hearings in four cities. According to the Aravalli Virasat Jan Abhiyaan, stakeholders have questioned whether the exercise has been sufficiently broad to assess the ecological and social impacts across the entire mountain system.

Farmers Raise Concerns Over Mining Impacts

Inderjit Singh, Vice-President of the All India Kisan Sabha, said rural communities across the Aravallis have depended for centuries on small-scale farming and cattle rearing, but that these livelihoods have been severely affected by mining and stone-crushing activities.

He cited declining water availability, dust deposition on crops, pollution from mine-water discharge, destruction of grazing lands and dumping of mining waste as major concerns.

Singh also questioned the geographical scope of the Committee's field visits, saying affected areas in Gujarat, Rajasthan and Haryana had not been visited.

Lokesh Bhiwani, Haryana State President of Kisan Sangharsh Samiti, similarly expressed dissatisfaction over the exclusion of several rural communities from the consultation process. He pointed to mining, waste dumping and burning, and stone-crushing operations in Gurgaon, Faridabad, Nuh, Bhiwani, Charkhi Dadri and Mahendergarh.

Gujarat Stakeholders Seek Wider Representation

Stakeholders from Gujarat have also raised concerns over the absence of the state from the Committee's recent field exercise.

Ashok Chaudhary, founder of Adivasi Samanvay Manch Bharat, and Ashok Shrimali, founder of Mines, Minerals and People, wrote to the Committee highlighting the concerns of rural communities affected by mining and noting that no Gujarat Aravalli district was included in the recent field trip.

Experts Call For An Extension

Dr Ravi Chopra, who has chaired two Supreme Court-appointed High-Powered Committees dealing with environmental and social impacts in the Upper Ganga basin and the Char Dham project, urged the Committee to expand its methodology and seek additional time.

Chopra said the committees he chaired had travelled extensively through affected regions and had themselves required extensions to complete detailed investigations. He argued that the Aravalli question is not merely environmental or economic but also raises fundamental questions about protecting an ancient natural heritage.

Earth scientist Dr C.P. Rajendran expressed concern that a proposed 100-metre elevation threshold could leave fragile slopes and buffer areas exposed to commercial mining and real-estate development.

Rajendran suggested that the Aravalli assessment could draw on the approach of the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel led by Madhav Gadgil, which treated the Western Ghats as an interconnected ecological system and emphasised science-based, decentralised and community-oriented conservation.

Conservationists Call For Independent Scientific Assessment

Stalin Dayanand, Director of Vanashakti, urged the Committee not to rush its report and instead broaden consultations, involve independent experts and include rural and Adivasi communities and knowledgeable local residents in field investigations.

He said local residents and conservation workers possess detailed knowledge of forests, water bodies and mining-affected areas that could complement information supplied by government agencies.

Ecological restoration practitioner Pradip Krishen called for a cumulative Environmental and Social Impact Study covering all 64 Aravalli districts identified by the campaign—63 districts referred to in the Forest Survey of India report of September 2025, along with Mathura district in Uttar Pradesh, where the Braj Bhoomi hills are regarded as part of the Aravallis.

Krishen proposed that such a study be undertaken by reputable independent institutions with specialists in ecology, geology, public health, wildlife and other relevant disciplines. He said the resulting assessment could help determine the carrying capacity of the Aravalli range and inform long-term decisions on mining and development.

The campaign has argued that the Aravallis are critical to North India's environmental security, particularly in relation to water, air quality, heat and climate resilience. It has also called for greater adoption of alternative building materials to reduce dependence on quarrying virgin stone from ecologically sensitive mountain landscapes.

The stakeholders' central demand is that the Committee seek additional time from the Supreme Court rather than submit its report by August 31 without completing a comprehensive, scientifically rigorous and participatory assessment of the Aravalli range.