Why the new Aravalli definition is dangerous | Neelam Ahluwalia interview

The Supreme Court’s acceptance of a new height-based definition for the Aravalli range has triggered intense debate over its environmental consequences. Environmentalists warn that the move could strip vast stretches of the ancient mountain range of key legal protections.

Also read: Save Aravallis: Why Gujarat activists are wary despite govt assurances

The Federal spoke to Neelam Ahluwalia, environmental activist and founder member of the People for Aravallis group, to understand what the new definition means and why it has raised serious concerns.

The Supreme Court has accepted a definition that considers only hills 100 metres above local relief as Aravallis. What does “local relief” mean, and why is it controversial?

The idea of “local relief” is extremely confusing. Normally, when you measure the height of anything, it is measured from the mean sea level. That is the standard scientific method. This concept of local relief is arbitrary because it has not been clearly defined. A local relief could be anything. It could be a stone, a farmland, a house, or even a riverbed.

If today you apply such a definition to the Aravallis, tomorrow the same logic can be applied to the Western Ghats, the Himalayas, or even rivers. You cannot say that a river below a certain height is no longer a river.

There is no clarity on what will be taken as the reference point. Even the geologists we have spoken to are perplexed. We ourselves are confused about how this will be applied on the ground. When officials go to measure a hill, what exactly will they consider as the local relief? There is ambiguity at every level.

Also read: SC to hear suo-motu case on Aravalli hills on Dec 29; here’s all about the issue

This makes the entire exercise unscientific. When something is not clearly defined, it allows authorities to choose a reference point that suits their convenience.

Why do you say this definition misunderstands what the Aravalli Range actually is?

The Aravallis are not just what you see above the ground. They exist equally below the ground. You cannot narrowly define a natural ecosystem like this. Aravallis are not tall mountain peaks. The range is nearly two billion years old, and many of its hills are low-lying.

A large number of Aravalli hills will not meet this 100-metre cutoff. Whether it excludes 70 per cent or 90 per cent is not the point. The point is that the definition itself is unscientific and makes no ecological sense.

Also read: Aravallis controversy: PM Modi doesn’t walk the talk, says Congress

If today you apply such a definition to the Aravallis, tomorrow the same logic can be applied to the Western Ghats, the Himalayas, or even rivers. You cannot say that a river below a certain height is no longer a river.

What are the environmental ramifications of this narrow definition?

The consequences are extremely serious. Once an area no longer qualifies as Aravalli, it loses legal protection. That opens it up to mining, real-estate development, commercial projects, landfills, and waste-to-energy plants.

There are already projects such as the 'Aravalli Zoo Safari' in Haryana. The threat of real estate and encroachment is constant. With this definition, everything becomes open for exploitation.

The government says Rajasthan has followed a 100-metre definition since the early 2000s. Why do you say this is different?

What Rajasthan was doing earlier was very different. Earlier, hills above 100 metres were protected, but slopes were not. It was like protecting only the top of a mushroom and leaving the rest exposed.

Now the claim is that an entire hill will be protected only if its total height is 100 metres or more. If it is even slightly less, it gets no protection at all.

Also read: No mining relaxation, 90 pc of Aravallis to stay protected: Bhupender Yadav

There was already an existing Forest Survey of India definition based on a three-degree slope. We are not saying that the definition was perfect, but no assessment has been done to compare how much area comes under the old definition versus this new one.

Why do you question the Supreme Court’s acceptance of this definition?

The Centrally Empowered Committee, which is a body of the Supreme Court, recommended in March 2024 that a detailed environmental impact assessment of the entire Aravalli range should be conducted. That assessment has still not been done.

We are now in December 2025. So, what was the blinding hurry to accept such a narrow definition without an impact assessment? The report submitted to the court was not even signed by expert members.

Out of the seven Aravalli districts in Haryana, two have been almost destroyed due to licensed mining. In Charkhi Dadri, only one hill remains protected. In Bhiwani, most hills have been reduced to rubble. Without a cumulative environmental and social impact assessment, no one can claim that 90 per cent is being saved.

There is no transparency. Even the amicus curiae warned that this definition would be harmful to the ecology of the Aravallis, but his concerns were not adequately reflected in the final judgment.

You have spoken about contradictions in government claims. What exactly are these inconsistencies?

There is complete confusion even about how many Aravalli districts exist. In one video, the (Union) environment minister said there are 39 districts. A press release mentioned 37. The committee report submitted to the court refers to 34 districts.

Also read: Modi govt has 'nearly signed death warrant' for Aravalli hills: Sonia Gandhi

On the ground, we work with rural communities across Haryana, Rajasthan, and Gujarat. According to us, Aravallis exist in 37 districts across these three states, excluding Delhi, where mining is already banned.

We want the ministry to clearly publish a list of districts it considers as Aravalli districts. Some districts seem to have been excluded altogether without explanation.

The environment minister has said that 90 per cent of the Aravallis will be saved. Why do you dispute this claim?

On what basis is this being claimed? People for Aravallis submitted a detailed report to the Ministry of Environment in May this year, focusing on Haryana’s Aravallis.

Out of the seven Aravalli districts in Haryana, two have been almost destroyed due to licensed mining. In Charkhi Dadri, only one hill remains protected. In Bhiwani, most hills have been reduced to rubble.

In just 10 years, from 2015 onwards, large portions of the Aravalli range in these districts have been finished. Without a cumulative environmental and social impact assessment, no one can claim that 90 per cent is being saved.

What is the situation on the ground across the Aravalli belt today?

We have visited Aravalli districts across Haryana, Rajasthan, and Gujarat. The range is bleeding everywhere. Licensed and illegal mining is rampant. Rivers have dried up. Groundwater levels have fallen to 1,000, 1,500, and even 2,000 feet.

Also read: Supreme Court orders 4 states to halt new mining leases in Aravallis

Agriculture is suffering because there is no water. This is a cattle-rearing belt, and the Aravallis are traditional grazing areas. Mining has destroyed these livelihoods.

Health impacts are severe. Silicosis, asthma, skin diseases, and kidney and liver problems are widespread across the range.

What should be done instead, according to you?

First, the Supreme Court should recall this judgment. The government should scrap this regressive definition.

A detailed social and environmental impact assessment of the entire Aravalli range across Gujarat, Rajasthan, and Haryana must be conducted as one continuous ecosystem. Gram sabhas should be consulted, because people living there understand the damage best.

There cannot be a uniform definition. Aravallis differ across districts and blocks. The entire range needs protection and restoration, not cosmetic solutions.

How will this affect Delhi-NCR, especially air pollution and water security?

There are already 12 identified breaches in the Aravallis from Ajmer to Jhunjhunu to Mahendragarh. These breaches allow desert winds and sandstorms to move towards eastern Rajasthan, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, and Delhi-NCR.

If more mining is allowed, the desert will advance faster. Air pollution will worsen, PM10 and PM2.5 levels will rise, and millions will be affected.

Food security and water security will also be threatened. Wildlife displacement will increase human-animal conflict. This region could become unlivable for both people and wildlife.

The content above has been transcribed using a fine-tuned AI model. To ensure accuracy, quality, and editorial integrity, we employ a Human-In-The-Loop (HITL) process. While AI assists in creating the initial draft, our experienced editorial team carefully reviews, edits, and refines the content before publication. At The Federal, we combine the efficiency of AI with the expertise of human editors to deliver reliable and insightful journalism.