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.The 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.The 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.End of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideos’MGNREGA Bachao Abhiyan’: Congress Announces Nationwide Protest Against VB-G RAM G ActShimla Hospital Assault: Doctors’ Strike Cripples OPDs, Surgeries Across Himachal PradeshCongress Rift Out In Open? Digvijaya Singh’s Modi-RSS Praise Draws Jibes From BJP Amid CWC MeetMass Exodus Of Skilled Professionals In Pakistan: Report Exposes Asim Munir’s ‘Brain Gain’ ClaimBJP Alleges Anti-India Global Nexus As Congress Leader Rahul Gandhi’s Germany Visit Sparks Fresh RowIndia, Asia Are Rising As Global Epicentres While US, Europe Lose Grip On Power: Russian AmbassadorCWC Meet: Top Congress Leaders Huddle Up In Delhi, Discuss Action Against Govt On G RAM G LawOperation Aaghat 3.0 Crushes Crime As Delhi Police Arrest 660 Accused Ahead Of New Year CelebrationsBJP MP Anurag Thakur Links Ram Name Objection to Congress Decline, Defends New Rural Jobs LawNew Zealand PM Defends India FTA as Economic Game Changer Despite Sharp Objections from Ally123PhotostoriesSelf-care Sunday: When self-care means saying no (even to people you love)6 authentic Italian vegetarian pizzas you need to try at least onceExclusive – Priyanka Chahar Choudhary breaks silence on ‘going under the knife’ rumours, Naagin comparisons, and her Naagin 7 lookDementia symptoms: The Quiet Red Flags That Have Nothing to Do With Memory LossTop medical advice from doctors that went viral in 2025The Inner Strength You Discovered This Year Based On Your Birth DatePull&Bear to Bershka: We bet you didn’t know Zara has these sister brandsSaffron, dates, and almonds: The holy trinity to help boost your immunity in winterPsychology reveals: People raised in lower-middle-class families often develop these 5 habits and qualities the rich don’t5 life-threatening diseases linked to air pollution123Hot PicksUAE WeatherPAN-Aadhaar linkingAmrit MondalGold rate todayIncome Tax RefundIndian Railways fareBank Holidays DecemberTop TrendingFrank Lampard and Christine Lampard Net WorthJordan Spieth Net WorthRicky Tiedemann InjuryBode Miller Net WorthTravis KelceAnthony JoshuaPatrick MahomesRaghav ChadhaBryan Woo Net WorthNBA Playoff
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.The 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.The 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.
