IN RE : ISSUE RELATING TO DEFINITION OF ARAVALI HILLS AND RANGES
Discusses environmental protection, sustainable development, and interpretation of environmental laws.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2025 INSC 1338
Decision Date: 20-11-2025
List of Laws
United Nations Convention on Combat Desertification; Wild Life Protection Act, 1972; Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957; Wetlands (Conservation & Management) Rules, 2017
- United Nations Convention on Combat Desertification: The judgment refers to India's ratification of the UNCCD on 17th December 1996. Article 4 of the Convention requires signatory states to adopt an integrated approach to address desertification's physical, biological, and socio-economic aspects, promoting land and water resource conservation and determining institutional mechanisms. Article 5 mandates India to strengthen existing laws, enact new ones if needed, and undertake long-term policy measures to combat desertification. Articles 10(2)(c) and 10(4) require national action programs, with attention to preventive measures for lands not yet degraded or only slightly degraded. The significance lies in highlighting India's international obligations towards combating desertification. This aligns with the global effort to address climate change and land degradation. The practical implication is that it reinforces the need for India to implement effective policies and laws for land conservation and sustainable development, a key takeaway for environmental lawyers and policymakers.
- Wild Life Protection Act, 1972: The judgment mentions Protected Areas, including Tiger Reserves, declared under the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. The CEC recommendations suggest that mining should be strictly prohibited in these areas. This is significant because it reinforces the protection afforded to these ecologically sensitive zones under national law. This aligns with the established legal precedent of prioritizing wildlife conservation in designated protected areas. The practical implication is that it provides a clear directive to prevent mining activities in these areas, strengthening the enforcement of wildlife protection laws, a key takeaway for forest officials and environmental activists.
- Environment (Protection) Act, 1986: The judgment refers to Section 3(2)(v) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, concerning the notification of Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZ)/Eco-Sensitive Areas (ESA). It also mentions Section 5(1) of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986. The CEC recommendations state that areas covered under Draft or Final ESZ/ESA notified under this Act should be designated as core/inviolate areas for prohibiting mining. This is significant as it highlights the role of ESZs in protecting ecologically fragile areas from industrial activities. This aligns with the established legal precedent of using ESZs as buffer zones around protected areas. The practical implication is that it reinforces the importance of proper notification and enforcement of ESZs to prevent environmental degradation, a key takeaway for environmental regulators and industries.
- The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957: The judgment refers to the MMDR Act, stating that no new mining lease should be granted in the Aravalli Hills and ranges, except in case of critical, strategic and atomic minerals (Atomic minerals notified in part B and Critical and Strategic minerals notified in Part D of the First Schedule of the MMDR Act) and minerals listed in the Seventh Schedule of the MMDR Act 1957. This is significant because it clarifies the exceptions to the general prohibition of new mining leases in the Aravalli region. The practical implication is that it provides a clear guideline for the grant of mining leases, balancing the need for mineral resources with environmental protection, a key takeaway for mining companies and regulatory authorities.
- Wetlands (Conservation & Management) Rules, 2017: The judgment mentions that mining should be prohibited within 500 meters from the boundary of Ramsar sites and Wetlands under the Wetlands (Conservation & Management) Rules, 2017. The significance of this lies in protecting these crucial ecosystems from the direct impacts of mining activities. This aligns with the national policy of conserving wetlands due to their ecological and hydrological importance. The practical implication is that it creates a buffer zone around wetlands, preventing pollution and habitat destruction from mining, a key takeaway for environmental agencies and local communities.
🔒 For Members Only