New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the environment ministry and other stakeholders to suggest names of domain experts for a committee that will define the Aravali hills and ranges. The court reiterated that only lawful mining would be permitted in the region.
On December 29, the court had taken note of widespread concerns over the new definition of the Aravalis and kept in abeyance its November 20 order accepting a uniform definition of the hill range. It had also suspended all mining activities.
A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, extended the interim stay on mining operations until further orders.
During the hearing, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for a litigant, submitted that his client held a valid mining licence obtained after prolonged litigation, but operations had been halted due to the court’s order.
“We will allow lawful mining only. Let the experts tell us the definition. We will cross all bridges and reach the right destination,” the Chief Justice observed.
The bench appointed advocate Jay Cheema to assist it. Senior advocate K Parmeswar is already assisting as amicus curiae.
The court requested the environment ministry to propose a panel of domain experts along with their profiles. Senior counsel were also asked to suggest eminent experts for consideration in constituting the committee.
While acknowledging that licensed mining firms have been affected by the suspension of activities, the bench said status quo must be maintained for the time being until preliminary issues are addressed in a phased manner. The matter has been posted for the constitution of the expert committee.
Stakeholders have been directed to submit written notes by March 10, after the amicus curiae presents suggestions on defining the Aravali hills and ranges.
Earlier, the bench noted that a prior committee report and judgment appeared to have omitted clarification of certain critical issues, creating a need for deeper examination to prevent regulatory gaps that could undermine the ecological integrity of the Aravali region.
It also referred to significant concerns raised by environmentalists about possible misinterpretation and improper implementation of the revised definition and the court’s directions.
