The Supreme Court, surprisingly, has endorsed the Union government’s new definition of the Aravalli hills which stipulates that only landforms rising 100 metres above the local relief would qualify as the Aravallis. This ruling will lead to the withdrawal of legal protection from the majority of this ancient mountain system — nearly 90% of the stretches of the hills fall below this threshold. A drastic contraction of the Aravallis’ legally-recognised extent will create conditions under which extensive mining and construction may proceed with minimal scrutiny despite grave ecological risks. Moreover, a 100-metre height filter ignores how ridge systems function and how even modest rises in elevation act as windbreaks and groundwater recharge zones. The Aravallis have shaped the climate across northwest India for millennia. Their scrub forests, ridges and low hillocks have slowed the march of the Thar desert, absorbed dust, recharged aquifers and moderated harsh winds. Stripping protections from these lower formations risks dismantling the structures that allow the range to function as a barrier system. Worrying developments from across the country reveal the consequences of diluting environmental protections and ignoring ecological realities — landslides, floods and extreme weather events in states like Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand and landslides in Wayanad and Idukki are cases in point.
The Aravallis are a foundation of ecological stability. Undermining them would deepen vulnerabilities that are already visible — Delhi’s perennial struggle with hazardous air is one example. A new, composite definition grounded in geology, vegetation, slope, hydrology and wildlife presence would offer a more accurate and protective framework. Stronger legal safeguards must accompany this. Designating the Aravallis as a Critical Ecological Zone across all four states that they span would create a unified layer of protection that transcends administrative variation. Mining and blasting near habitation, agricultural fields, aquifer zones and wildlife habitats require stringent prohibition. Public mobilisation modelled on the resolve of the Chipko movement, coupled with a willingness on the part of the Supreme Court to revisit its verdict, could still safeguard the Aravallis. Otherwise, the Aravallis are doomed to the status of a diminishing geological memory.