Bengaluru: “The Aravallis is safe.”“The government has not relaxed any rule about the Aravallis.”“The Aravallis will remain protected, this is also the prime minister’s resolve.”These are some of the many statements made by Union environment minister Bhupender Yadav over the last week about the government’s new definition for the Aravallis – which has whipped up quite a storm.The new definition – which says that only hills above a local relief level of 100 metres in height will qualify as the Aravallis, according to a Supreme Court order – means that a large part of the Aravallis will be opened up for commercial activities such as mining, environmentalists have alleged.But the new definition will not endanger the Aravalli hill range – only protect it, the minister has claimed several times over the past week. Any report that suggests otherwise is “misinformation”, he said.Several BJP social media accounts too have entered the fray, reiterating this. Meanwhile, members of opposition parties have refused to accept these claims and countered them.But why this sudden burst of clarifications by the minister, and via government media bureaus and BJP party handles on social media – when the Supreme Court’s order accepting the definition came on November 20, about a month ago? Huge protests in Rajasthan, and opposition parties lending support to the cause, may hold the answer.Environmental policy researchers told The Wire that the Supreme Court’s acceptance of the uniform definition for the Aravallis is a “disappointment”, and shows how the court is increasingly siding with corporate interests.They added that if what minister Yadav now claims is true – that the new definition will mean that only 0.19% of the Aravallis may be opened up for mining – he should come on record about how many hills comprise the Aravallis, and how many will cease to be part of it if the new definition is implemented.That is also one of the demands that environmentalists as part of a citizen collective, the Aravalli Virasat Jan Abhiyaan, have made of Yadav on December 22.The Aravallis definition issueOn November 20, the Supreme Court accepted the Union environment ministry’s recommendation for a new, uniform definition of the Aravallis.Per this definition as specified in the Supreme Court order, a landform will be considered part of the Aravalli Range only if it is at least 100 metres higher than the local relief (including the landform’s slopes and adjacent areas), as The Wire pointed out in its story dated December 7. In geology, local relief is the difference between the highest point and the lowest point in a small area.Only if two hills are within 500 metres of each other will the area between the two be considered as part of the Aravalli Hills too.This definition of the Aravalli Hills and Ranges “in the context of mining” was proposed by a committee constituted by the Supreme Court in 2024.Incidentally, this committee contained only officials from departments under the Union government. The joint secretary of the Union environment ministry was the convenor of the committee; other members were the secretary of the same ministry, the secretaries of all four states which the Aravalli Range spans, and one representative each from the Geological Survey of India (which comes under the Ministry of Mines), and the Central Empowered Committee and the Forest Survey of India (FSI) – both of which come under the Union environment ministry.The Aravallis span a total of 34 districts according to the Union environment ministry. In this satellite image of a section of the range courtesy NASA, Jaipur is seen in the bottom left and Alwar in the top right.“Bureaucrats cannot be experts,” environmental policy researcher Debadityo Sinha told The Wire on December 23. “The committee needed credible experts but there were none. No independent scientist, or even a scientist with the Wildlife Institute of India, or a social scientist was part of it.”Moreover, using a 100 metre-cut off based on the average elevation of a district is problematic, Sinha pointed out. The Committee’s report as filed in the ministry’s affidavit shows that it used an arithmetic mean to justify an arbitrary 100-metre baseline, he said.“For a statistical analysis of a dataset with such high variance, the ‘average’ is a misleading metric here … There should have been a serious deliberation on using more representative metrics, such as the median or the full elevation range, rather than a simplistic average that distorts the physical reality,” Sinha, an ecologist by training, noted.A report by the Indian Express on November 27 had said that as per internal documents of the FSI, only 1,048 of 12,081 Aravalli Hills that are 20 metres or higher and spread across 15 districts in Rajasthan, are 100 metres or more in height. This means that just about 8.7% of the Aravallis in Rajasthan (which has the highest area under the Aravallis across all states) will be protected by the new definition, the report said.The news report also quoted an official of the Union environment ministry as saying that the FSI had cautioned that the 100 metre cut-off “would protect only a few guard posts while surrendering the fences below”. The FSI itself uses a definition for the Aravallis that does not rely on local relief, per the Supreme Court order.Incidentally, the amicus curiae (an advocate appointed by courts to provide unbiased arguments) for the case, K. Parameshwar, also raised this concern, court proceedings show. If the definition as recommended by the committee is accepted, all the hills below the height of 100 metres would be opened up for mining and as a result the Aravalli Hills and Ranges would lose their continuity and integrity, the Amicus had said.“He, therefore, submitted that if the definition as suggested by the Committee is accepted, it would totally endanger the environment and ecology of the mountains,” the Supreme Court order stated.But the government argued against this, saying that the new definition suggested by the Committee would result in a larger area being included as part of the Aravalli Hills and Ranges when compared to the area that would be included if the FSI’s definition (which is not based on local relief) was used. No further details of this were specified in the order.Environmentalists raised numerous concerns too. They told The Wire on December 7 that the new definition was “regressive”, and disastrous for the hill range chiefly because of the impacts on people, biodiversity and the ecosystem primarily due to the opening of vast tracts of the Aravallis to mining.This will in turn also worsen air quality in the Delhi-NCR – when the national capital has already been choking on extremely high pollution levels for almost two months now.A sudden media pushBut this is not true, and the Aravallis will not be opened up for mining, according to Union environment minister Yadav.Over the last week, the minister, his ministry and his political party have said that any report suggesting that the new definition threatens a large part of the Aravallis by opening it to mining is “misinformation”.In a post on social media on December 18, Yadav shared his conversation on the sidelines of the India Economic Enclave 2025, an event organised by the Times Network.“The court has asked only that a plan for sustainable mining be made, we haven’t allowed any mining yet,” Yadav said, after which he proceeded to read out excerpts from the Supreme Court order.“We will not allow illegal mining at all, illegal mining doesn’t exist. The Supreme Court order also does not permit any illegal mining,” he added.On December 21, he told media houses that no relaxation of any sort has been made in the hill range. Some “YouTube channels and people” have spread the wrong information that the tops of hills will be protected but their bases will not, he said.Yadav, his ministry and his party have over the last week been engaged in a media push on the issue. The minister is seen here addressing a press conference at the Indira Paryavaran Bhavan in Delhi on December 22, 2025. Photo: PTI/Salman Ali.Due to the new definition, more than 90% of the area of the Aravallis will be protected, he insisted. Mining can occur only in around 0.19% of the area, but that too only under some conditions, including getting permission from the Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education as recommended by the Supreme Court, he said. Mining is not allowed anywhere in Delhi, he said.Where did the figure of only 1,048 hills qualifying for protection come from, asked Yadav in one of the many interviews he has given recently to various media houses to convince citizens that the new definition of the Aravallis will not endanger it in any way.On December 21, the Press Information Bureau – the government’s media department – also released an FAQ and ‘detailed backgrounder’ on the issue, covering the government’s stand and the Supreme Court order. It reiterated that the Aravallis remain under the “robust protection” of the Union environment ministry and with coordinated efforts with state governments.“The Government reiterates its commitment to ecological preservation, sustainable development and transparency. Contrary to alarmist claims, there is no imminent threat to the Aravallis’ ecology,” the press note said.On December 22, the Union minister shared his conversation with ANI, in which he said that his government has been working towards the Aravalli Green Wall for some years now. To prevent illegal mining in the Aravallis, a proper definition of the hill range was required and this was what the Supreme Court order dealt with, he said. On the same day, ANI shared yet another video clip of Yadav speaking about the Aravalli issue:On December 23, the official handle of the Union environment ministry on X shared several posts claiming myths and facts about the new definition of the Aravallis, claiming once again that peoples’ inference that all areas under 100 metres in the Aravallis would be open to mining was wrong. On the same day, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting shared Yadav’s video adding that he had clarified the facts on mining in the Aravallis.Also on the same day, the FSI stated in a social media post on X that it “categorically refutes claims in certain sections of the media that it has carried out any study showing that 90% of the hills in Aravalli would be left unprotected following the recent judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 20th November, 2025”.Several right-wing handles have also entered the fray. Amit Malviya, the BJP’s national information and technology department in-charge, said in a social media post that the steps to redefine the Aravallis were being taken for “environmental conservation” and “sustainable development”.“Lies” are being pushed by “a few loud, clueless propagandists around the Aravalli Hills”, the BJP’s handle on X said, quoting Yadav.Why these sudden “clarifications” by the Union minister, the push on social media by government press bureaus, the Union environment and information and broadcasting ministries, and even research institutes like the FSI over the past week?Protests to save Aravallis in RajasthanIt turns out that at around exactly this time, several large protests have been unfolding across Rajasthan due to the Aravallis definition issue. The state has the maximum area – around 80% according to a document submitted by activists to MPs in the second week of December this year – under the Aravallis.Over the last few days, many cities across the state witnessed protests, with thousands of people taking to the streets, several media houses reported.On Monday, December 21, agitations erupted in Jodhpur, Udaipur and Sikar, leading to clashes between protesters and the police, Indian Express reported. In Udaipur, lawyers took to the streets to protest, saying that the new definition would mean more widespread mining in the hill range that is already witnessing illegal as well as permitted mining.Opposition parties have lent support to the protests and agitations.A demonstration under the banner of the Aravali Virasat Jan Abhiyan at the Tosham Hill in western Haryana. Photo: lokeshbhiwani/Instagram.In Rajasthan, Congress leader and former chief minister Ashok Gehlot took up the issue by highlighting how the Union government had brought the Central Empowered Committee under the Union environment ministry when it used to report directly to the Supreme Court previously. He also called Yadav’s claim that only 0.19% of the Aravallis would be open for mining as being ‘misleading and factually incorrect’.“The Aravallis are not just a hill range, they are a lifeline,” he said.Leader of the opposition in the Rajasthan assembly, Tikaram Jully, also strongly criticised the new definition cleared by the Supreme Court, reported the New Indian Express. The fight to save the Aravalli Range was no longer the responsibility of any single political party but a collective social duty to protect the state and the future of the coming generations, the report cited him as saying.“The Aravalli hills are a natural boon for several states including Rajasthan, Haryana, Delhi and Gujarat. These hills play a crucial role in groundwater recharge, rainwater conservation, preventing desertification, preserving biodiversity and controlling pollution. I will join the Save Aravalli foot march organised by NSUI [National Students’ Union of India] Rajasthan to extend my support to this serious issue,” Congress leader Sachin Pilot said on December 23. The march will take place on December 26 at Jaipur.On December 21, Samajwadi Party chief and former Uttar Pradesh chief minister Akhilesh Yadav called on citizens to come together to save the Aravallis for several reasons, citing the extreme air pollution in the national capital as one of the many reasons:“Saving the Aravalli means saving ourselves. If the destruction of the Aravalli is not stopped, the BJP’s conspiracy to legitimise illegal mining and the insatiable hunger for land will turn the country’s capital into the world’s “Pollution Capital”, forcing people to abandon Delhi.”Meanwhile, the BJP’s handle said on December 22 that “Opposition parties are manufacturing outrage to hide the truth”. Several BJP leaders in Rajasthan, including chief minister Bhajan Lal Sharma, have indignantly claimed that they will not let anything happen to the Aravallis.‘Raises more questions and doubts’Senior Congress leader Jairam Ramesh said that the recent ‘clarifications’ by Yadav raise more questions than doubts.“The Minister says that only 0.19% of the 1.44 lakh sq kms of the Aravallis is presently under mining leases. This already amounts to 68,000 acres – which is a huge amount,” he said in a post on X.The 1.44 lakh sq km figure is also “deceptive” because it spans the entire area of the 34 Aravalli districts identified by the ministry in four states, he added.“This is the wrong denominator, since the denominator that should actually be used is the area within these districts which is actually under the Aravallis. If the area under the Aravallis is used as a base, then 0.19% will turn out to be a very huge under-estimate.”He also noted, among other things, that there was “no clarity” about how much of these Aravalli areas will be excluded under the new definition and made available for mining and other developments.Ramesh also pointed out how Yadav has been at the helm to redefine the boundaries of the Sariska Tiger Reserve to permit mining in the denotified areas, as The Wire had reported.“The Aravallis are part of our natural heritage and have great ecological value. They need substantial restoration and meaningful protection. Why is the Modi Govt hellbent on redefining them? To what end? For whose benefit? And why are the recommendations of a professional organisation like the Forest Survey of India being deliberately ignored and set aside?,” Ramesh asked.The small hills, grasslands and other areas of the Aravallis that do not fall under protected areas or reserved forests are also important to millions of people who live in the area. Photo: KartikMistry/Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 4.0.‘Specify details: Which hills will go?’Citizens’ collectives have again spoken out about the issue. On December 11 – which is also International Mountain Day – the People for Aravallis collective launched the Aravalli Virasat Jan Abhiyaan and citizens under this banner met several elected political representatives, requesting them to raise their concerns in the winter session of parliament that was ongoing then.The MPs they met included senior leaders of the Congress, an MP from the Bharat Adivasi Party and others.The Abhiyaan, in a press release on December 22, raised concerns regarding the “divergence” in the statements made by minister Yadav on various fora over the past days. Demanding “transparency” from Yadav, the Abhiyaan has asked the minister to specify the actual number and the names of the Aravalli districts according to the Union environment ministry in the four states of Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan and Gujarat.]It also requested that the minister list the total number of hills as per the FSI definition that would be regarded as Aravallis, the number of hills that would be regarded as Aravallis as per the new definition accepted by the Supreme Court on November 20, and the area of Aravallis under both definitions.This is the same question that environmental policy researcher Sinha also posed. If what Yadav now claims is true – that the new definition will mean that only 0.19% of the Aravallis may be opened up for mining – he should come on record about how many hills comprise the Aravallis, and how many will cease to be part of it if the new definition is implemented, Sinha told The Wire.The protected areas and reserved forests within the Aravalli Range will be protected anyway, under several acts including the Wild Life Protection Act of 1972, Sinha said. However, many parts of the Aravallis come under revenue land, and hills here could disappear if mining comes in, he warned.Moreover, the hills of the Aravallis and the entire range cannot be treated as separate entities, Sinha added.“These hills are important for several reasons including their role as watersheds,” he said. “The foothills are important for animal movement too. So these hills cannot be conserved in isolation.”Sinha also told The Wire that the Supreme Court’s acceptance of the uniform definition for the Aravallis is a “disappointment”, and shows how the court is increasingly siding with corporate interests.Incidentally, the amicus curiae for the case had suggested that until further orders are passed by the Supreme Court, no fresh mining leases or renewals of existing mining leases be permitted in Haryana and Rajasthan. However, the solicitor general of India – along with 13 counsels appearing for the Federation of Associations of Mining in Rajasthan – opposed this.They submitted that “if the order, as sought by the learned amicus curiae is passed, it [sic] would have a cascading effect on the livelihood of millions of labourers”.So the court permitted states to “consider and process the applications for grant of mining leases” and also renew existing ones; however, the final permission will be given by the court, it said.Livelihood is indeed an important issue – but not just for people who depend on mining. The small hills, grasslands and other areas of the Aravallis that do not fall under protected areas or reserved forests are also important to many more millions who live in the area and depend on the hill range for several reasons.This includes the range’s rich, grazing pastures that their livestock feed on, and hill systems that function as watersheds for local rivers.These common lands are crucial for livelihood too. So why didn’t the court bring these people in as stakeholders too in this crucial discussion, asked Sinha.