Aravalli panel accused of suppressing forest survey's view on hill definition
text_fields
The Supreme Court of India has been told that a panel led by the Environment Secretary “completely suppressed” the views of the Forest Survey of India while recommending a controversial definition of the Aravalli Range based on a 100 metre height threshold.
Senior advocate K. Parmeshwar, appointed as amicus curiae in the case, informed the court that the panel defined the Aravalli hills solely on the basis of elevation while ignoring the FSI’s views on the ecological importance of lower lying hills.
The court was told that an email sent on October 7, 2025, by the director general of the Forest Survey of India disagreed with the 100 metre definition and suggested an alternative approach.
The amicus submission also stated that the FSI had issued a report on September 22, 2025, to the Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change, highlighting the importance of hills of varied heights. According to the report, this document was not mentioned in the ministry’s affidavit filed on October 13, 2025, and was not considered by the committee.
Parmeshwar has recommended that the Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education and the Forest Survey of India conduct surveys across the entire Aravalli geomorphological region to map ecological corridors and aquifers.
He also cited a letter dated October 14, 2025, from the Central Empowered Committee stating that the Aravalli panel’s report was never placed before it or approved.
The amicus report warned that limiting the definition to landforms above 100 metres could fragment the mountain system and open more areas for mining, particularly affecting lower hills that help combat desertification and support groundwater recharge.
On November 20, 2025, the Supreme Court accepted the panel’s recommendation that landforms at least 100 metres above local relief be classified as Aravalli hills. However, in December, the bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant took suo motu cognisance of the issue, stayed the earlier order, and called for a new expert committee to revisit the definition.