New Delhi: As per a report by the Indian Express on Saturday (March 7), K. Parameshwar, amicus curae in the Supreme Court cases related to the Union government’s bid to redefine the Aravalli hills, submitted on February 24 that the Union environment ministry “completely suppressed” a report with a finding contrary to its own, prepared by its own Forest Survey of India (FSI).The FSI, mandated to survey and assess forest resources, is an organisation under the Union environment ministry, and, per the IE report, the amicus has found that in defining the Aravalli hills “solely on the basis of height”, the ministry was “disregarding the FSI’s opinion about the importance of lower lying hills”.An environment ministry panel had decided that only landforms at an elevation of 100 metres or higher would be considered part of the Aravalli hills. This recommendation was accepted by the Supreme Court in November last year, and later stayed.The amicus noted that FSI’s report, dated September 22, 2025, was “completely suppressed…in the extensive affidavit” filed by the environment ministry on October 13, 2025. Days earlier, in an email sent on October 7, the FSI Director General had disagreed with the definition and provided an alternative, the IE report said.Also read: The Aravalli Hills Have A New Definition. Here’s Why This Is A Problem.Per the news report, the amicus said that the Supreme Court’s Central Empowered Committee (CEC) had written to him on October 14 to say that the Aravalli committee report was never placed before it and never approved. He told the newspaper that, according to the CEC, the hydrological function of the Aravallis was not considered in the report even though the landscape showed “an immense potential of about 2 million litre ground water recharge per hectare”.The report the environment ministry finally prepared was also “unsigned” and “undated”, the IE report, which quotes the amicus, says.‘Inherent defect’ in definitionThe amicus said, per the news report, that the committee failed to create any mechanism for public consultation and participation. The 100-metre height definition “suffered from an inherent defect” because the ministry’s committee had repeatedly recorded that “it is for the purpose of operationalising mining alone”.This, per the amicus, was an incorrect reading of last year’s August 8 Supreme Court order, which specifically recorded that the intention was to protect and conserve the Aravalli hills, per the IE report.A definition “tailored only to mining purposes” ignores that the Aravalli range, even though it spans four states, constitutes one contiguous ecosystem, the IE report quoted the Amicus as saying in his February 24 submission to the top court.“Any plan to conserve and protect the Aravalli range must comprehensively address the needs of the entire geographical feature as a whole,” the amicus reportedly said.Two research bodies to map Aravalli corridorsIn his submission, the amicus suggested that both the Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education and the FSI be directed to survey the entire Aravalli geomorphological region to identify and map key ecological corridors and aquifers. Based on their findings, the amicus’s note to the court said, a future expert committee of the Supreme Court could determine mechanisms to plan for conservation areas or mining and other developmental activities within the Aravalli ecosystem.Also read: Stay on New Definition of Aravallis to Continue, Amicus Curiae to File Report in Four WeeksPer the IE report, the Supreme Court had on February 26 asked the amicus curiae’s note to be circulated among the parties and called for names for setting up a committee of domain experts.On November 20 last year, the Supreme Court accepted the recommendations of an environment ministry panel that only landforms at an elevation of 100 metres or higher above the local relief, along with slopes and adjacent land, would be considered part of the Aravalli hills.Following an outcry among environmentalists and widespread agitations, especially in Rajasthan – home to the most area under the Aravallis – the apex court took suo motu cognisance on December 29 and stayed its own November order.In the December 29 order, the court asked the amicus curiae and the CEC to assist in the case. The case will be heard again later this month.