Syllabus: Conservation, environmental pollution and degradation, environmental impact assessment.
Context
- Government faces intense controversy over mining activities in the Aravalli range.
- Issue highlights growing public distrust on ecological governance and transparency.
Supreme Court Intervention
- On November 20, Supreme Court prohibited fresh mining leases in Aravallis.
- Ban to continue until Management Plan for Sustainable Mining (MPSM) is operational.
- Court placed MPSM under central supervision to strengthen regulatory oversight.
- Mining allowed only for government-approved critical minerals, with general pause imposed.
Ecological Concerns in Aravallis
- Rampant mining, quarrying, and deforestation have degraded the Aravalli ecosystem.
- Activities contributed to groundwater depletion, ecological damage, and air pollution.
- Environmental degradation has worsened air quality in Delhi and Haryana.
- Aravallis act as a natural ecological barrier, crucial for regional environmental stability.
Court’s Dilemma on Mining
- Court avoided a blanket mining ban, citing risks of increased illegal mining.
- India’s development trajectory demands continuous supply of stone and minerals.
- Acknowledged State enforcement limitations and mining’s role in State revenues.
- Conflict of interest exists between revenue generation and environmental protection.
Definition Controversy of Aravallis
- Court accepted expert committee definition: hills 100 metres above local relief.
- Forest Survey of India (2010) estimated 92% hills excluded under this definition.
- Attorney Solicitor General argued alternative definitions may shrink Aravalli extent further.
- Court did not clearly justify preference for one interpretation over another.
Aravalli Green Wall Project Debate
- Centre promoted Aravalli Green Wall Project as restoration initiative.
- Article argues reforestation cannot reliably compensate for deforestation.
- Afforestation presented without addressing mining-driven ecological loss.
Transparency and Trust Deficit
- Crucial data and reasoning not placed in public domain.
- Decision-making reduced to trusting government assurances.
- Lack of transparency undermines credible environmental policymaking.
- Government claims definition applies only to mining leases, not other land uses.
Conclusion
- Aravalli debate reflects institutional credibility crisis in environmental governance.
- Without transparency, afforestation efforts and political rebuttals remain ineffective.