Union Minister Bhupendra Yadav strongly rejected allegations that the Centre has diluted protections for the Aravalli hills on Sunday — insisting that nearly 90% of the mountainous landscape will remain under a protected zone. He also reiterated that mining would only be permitted in a minimal area. The remarks came even as Opposition leaders intensified their criticism of a recent Supreme Court order that edited the definition.
“There are no relaxations on the Aravalli. The Aravalli range spans four states: Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan, and Gujarat. A petition regarding it has been pending in court since 1985…Some YouTube channels misinterpret the 100 metre range as the top 100 metres, which is not true. The 100 metres refers to the spread of the hill from top to bottom, and a gap between two ranges will also be considered part of the Aravalli range. With this definition, 90 per cent of the area comes under the protected zone,” he said.
Earlier on November 20, the Supreme Court accepted the Centre’s definition of the Aravalli hills and approved recommendations for sustainable mining. The apex court also directed the environment ministry to prepare a detailed Management Plan for Sustainable Mining to identify permissible zones, protect ecologically sensitive areas and prevent illegal mining across the Aravalli landscape.
‘No relaxation’ for mining?
The Environmental minister claimed that mining would remain tightly regulated.
“Mark my words, the total Aravalli area is about 1.47 lakh square kilometres. Only around 217 square kilometres, nearly two per cent, is eligible for mining. Even so, the Supreme Court has directed that a Management Plan for Sustainable Mining be prepared. After that, permission from ICFRE will be required before any activity can proceed,” he said.
Opposition fumes
The recent verdict has prompted vehement criticism from Opposition leaders. Former Rajasthan Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot launched a sharp attack on the BJP-led state and central governments over the Aravalli hills issue on Sunday, questioning why the Rajasthan government in 2024 supported a “100-metre” definition that the Supreme Court had rejected as far back as 2010.
