The Supreme Court on Monday refused to grant the high-powered committee examining the definition and protection of the Aravalli Hills the six-month extension it had sought, directing the panel to submit its final report by 30th November.
A bench headed by chief justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and comprising justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana made it clear that no further extension would be granted. The committee had sought time until 28 February 2027, saying it needed more time to complete a comprehensive assessment of the ecologically sensitive hill range.
The CJI took exception to the proposed February deadline which would fall after his retirement from the Supreme Court on 9 February 2027.
“They have clearly asked for a date after my retirement...If they are not capable, we will re-constitute,” CJI Kant said during the hearing.
The Court, subsequently, directed the panel to ‘work day and night’ and complete the exercise by 30 November 2026. It also warned that the committee would be reconstituted if it failed to meet the fresh deadline.
The order comes at a critical stage in the long-running dispute over how the Aravalli Hills and Ranges should be identified and protected, an issue with direct implications for mining and other activities across the ecologically fragile landscape.
Court Insists on Wider Consultation
While shortening the timeline, the bench did not dilute the scope of the committee's mandate. It directed the panel to conduct a comprehensive consultation before finalising its findings and specifically ensure that all affected stakeholders are heard.
The exercise is to include tribal communities in Rajasthan and Gujarat, among others, whose interests could be affected by the eventual definition and protection framework.
The Court also permitted the committee to submit interim reports on specific issues if necessary. That would allow urgent questions concerning the Aravallis to be placed before the bench without waiting for the entire exercise to conclude.
The matter has been listed for 2 December 2026, when the Court is expected to consider the committee's final report and the issues arising from it.
Additional solicitor general (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati told the Bench that the committee had already prepared an interim report. The CJI, however, stressed that the Court expected a final report rather than merely another interim submission.
Ms Bhati explained that the panel needed additional time to hear affected parties effectively, pointing out that some stakeholders had received only a limited opportunity to place their concerns before the committee.
The Court ultimately allowed the panel until 30th November —giving it about three months beyond the original 31 August 2026 deadline—instead of the six months sought.
Dispute over How the Aravallis Should Be Defined
The fresh exercise follows a series of Supreme Court interventions triggered by controversy over the legal definition of the Aravalli Hills.
The Court had taken suo motu cognisance of the issue in December 2025, following protests and concerns from environmental groups and civil society organisations over a revised definition of the hills. The controversy centred on fears that a narrower definition could remove large portions of the Aravalli landscape from regulatory protection and facilitate mining and construction.
The dispute has its roots in differing approaches to defining and demarcating the Aravalli Hills and Ranges across Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan and Gujarat. The absence of a uniform definition had contributed to regulatory gaps and disputes over mining activity.
In its 20 November 2025 judgement, a bench headed by then CJI BR Gavai had accepted an elevation-based definition recommended by an expert committee to regulate mining.
Under that framework, an Aravalli Hill was defined as a landform in specified Aravalli districts rising at least 100 metres above the surrounding local relief. Two or more such hills located within 500 metres of each other would constitute an Aravalli Range.
The judgement also provided for restrictions on mining in core and inviolate areas but stopped short of imposing a blanket prohibition, observing that an outright ban could have the unintended consequence of encouraging illegal mining.
The definition triggered widespread criticism, with environmentalists and other groups arguing that the 100-metre threshold could exclude substantial portions of the Aravalli ecosystem from protection.
The Supreme Court, subsequently, put the November 2025 judgement on hold and kept the earlier recommendations in abeyance. It concluded that an independent expert assessment was needed to examine the ecological consequences of the proposed demarcation.
Fresh Expert Exercise
The present HPC was constituted pursuant to the Court's 25th May order to undertake a comprehensive examination of the definition and demarcation of the Aravalli Hills and Ranges and related issues. The committee had originally been asked to submit its report by 31 August 2026.
The panel has been tasked with examining the Aravallis as an ecological and geographical system rather than simply resolving a technical question of elevation or boundaries.
The committee's work has acquired added importance because any final definition could influence the regulatory framework governing mining and development across parts of Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan and Gujarat.
The Union ministry of environment, forest and climate change has also invited representations from a broad range of stakeholders, including environmentalists, conservation groups, mining lease holders, project proponents, villagers, farmers, mine workers and local communities.
The Court's insistence on hearing tribal communities in Rajasthan and Gujarat underscores the exercise's wider implications beyond mining regulation.
Deadline Pressure
The panel's request for a six-month extension had come after the 31 August 2026 deadline expired. It argued that the complexity of the Aravalli ecosystem and the need for a scientifically defensible assessment required more time. Recent reporting on the committee's work indicates that it has favoured an ecosystem-based approach rather than relying on a single terrain or elevation criterion.
But the Supreme Court has now drawn a firm line under the timetable.
“If they are unable to do that in two months, we will reconstitute the whole panel,” the CJI observed, underscoring the Court's unwillingness to allow the dispute to remain unresolved indefinitely.
The Court's next hearing on 2 December 2026 is therefore, likely to mark a significant stage in the continuing battle over the future of the Aravallis.
