Guwahati: An amicus curiae assisting the Supreme Court in cases related to the Union government’s move to redefine the Aravalli hills has alleged that the Union Environment Ministry “completely suppressed” a report prepared by its own Forest Survey of India (FSI) that contained findings contrary to the ministry’s position.
According to a report by The Indian Express, amicus curiae K. Parameshwar informed the Supreme Court in a submission dated February 24 that the ministry did not disclose the FSI report while filing an extensive affidavit before the court.
The FSI, an organisation under the Environment Ministry tasked with assessing and monitoring forest resources, had reportedly cautioned against defining the Aravalli hills solely on the basis of elevation. The amicus noted that by adopting a height-based definition, the ministry had disregarded the FSI’s opinion on the ecological importance of lower-lying hills.
A panel constituted by the Environment Ministry had recommended that only landforms at an elevation of 100 metres or higher be considered part of the Aravalli hills. The Supreme Court initially accepted this recommendation in November last year, though the order was subsequently stayed.
In his submission, Parameshwar said the FSI report dated September 22, 2025, had been “completely suppressed” in the ministry’s affidavit filed on October 13, 2025. He also referred to an email sent on October 7 by the FSI Director General, who had reportedly disagreed with the proposed definition and suggested an alternative approach.
The amicus further stated that the Supreme Court’s Central Empowered Committee (CEC) informed him on October 14 that the report of the ministry’s Aravalli committee had neither been placed before it nor approved by it.
He also pointed out that the hydrological functions of the Aravalli landscape had not been considered in the report, despite its significant groundwater recharge potential, estimated at about two million litres per hectare.
The report eventually submitted by the Environment Ministry was also “unsigned” and “undated”, the amicus told the court.
Parameshwar argued that the proposed definition suffered from an “inherent defect” because it appeared to have been framed primarily to regulate mining activities rather than to protect the ecosystem. He noted that the ministry’s committee had repeatedly recorded that the 100-metre threshold was meant mainly for “operationalising mining”, which, according to the amicus, reflected a misinterpretation of the Supreme Court’s August 8 order last year that emphasised conservation of the Aravalli hills.
He also observed that the committee had not created any mechanism for public consultation or participation while framing the definition.
The amicus cautioned that a definition designed mainly with mining in mind ignored the fact that the Aravalli range, though spread across four states, functions as a single contiguous ecosystem.
“Any plan to conserve and protect the Aravalli range must comprehensively address the needs of the entire geographical feature as a whole,” he said in his submission.
Parameshwar also suggested that the Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education and the Forest Survey of India be directed to jointly survey the entire geomorphological region of the Aravallis to identify and map key ecological corridors and aquifers.
Based on their findings, he suggested, a future expert committee appointed by the Supreme Court could determine appropriate mechanisms for conservation planning while balancing mining and developmental activities within the ecosystem.
On February 26, the Supreme Court directed that the amicus curiae’s note be circulated among the parties and sought names for the formation of a committee of domain experts.
Earlier, on November 20 last year, the apex court had accepted the Environment Ministry panel’s recommendation defining Aravalli hills as landforms rising 100 metres or more above the local relief, along with associated slopes and adjacent areas.
However, following strong opposition from environmentalists and protests, particularly in Rajasthan, which contains the largest portion of the Aravalli range, the court took suo motu cognisance of the issue on December 29 and stayed its earlier order.
In the same order, the court asked the amicus curiae and the Central Empowered Committee to assist in examining the matter further. The case is scheduled to be heard again later this month.