Congress leaders on Monday endorsed a Supreme Court directive seeking clarity on how the Aravalli Hills are defined and protected, and escalated pressure on union environment minister Bhupendra Yadav by demanding his resignation, arguing that prolonged ambiguity has weakened safeguards for one of the subcontinent’s oldest mountain systems.The party said the court’s intervention underscored years of regulatory drift that allowed quarrying, construction and land-use changes to proceed under shifting interpretations of what constitutes the Aravallis. It contended that the absence of a clear, science-led definition has created loopholes in environmental clearances across the National Capital Region and adjoining districts of Haryana, Rajasthan and the National Capital Territory of Delhi, with knock-on effects for groundwater recharge, air quality and biodiversity.
According to Congress, the Supreme Court’s direction to revisit and standardise the definition of the Aravalli Hills carries immediate policy consequences because multiple notifications and executive orders over decades have treated the range differently. Party spokespeople said this patchwork has permitted local authorities to reclassify land parcels, undermining conservation intent and frustrating enforcement agencies. They argued that the court’s move restores primacy to ecological considerations and places accountability back on the environment ministry.
The Aravalli range stretches over 670 kilometres from Gujarat through Rajasthan to Haryana and Delhi, acting as a natural barrier against desertification and supporting aquifers that feed towns and farms. Environmental researchers have long warned that mining and urban sprawl have fragmented habitats and altered drainage patterns. Congress leaders echoed those concerns, saying the cumulative impact has intensified dust pollution episodes in north India and heightened flood risks during monsoon spells.
At the heart of the political row is the role of the environment ministry in framing and defending notifications that delineate protected areas. Congress accused the ministry of presiding over repeated revisions that narrowed protections, citing instances where older ridge and forest records were set aside in favour of revenue classifications. The party maintained that such decisions conflicted with judicial pronouncements emphasising the precautionary principle and the need to err on the side of conservation when definitions are contested.
Bhupendra Yadav, who holds the environment portfolio, has previously stated that the government aims to balance development needs with environmental protection and that policies are aligned with court orders. Congress rejected that defence, saying the Supreme Court’s directive itself signals that balance has tilted too far towards commercial interests. It said ministerial accountability was necessary to restore public confidence and ensure that future notifications are insulated from political pressure.
Legal analysts note that the court has, over the years, intervened repeatedly on the Aravallis, directing state governments to halt illegal mining and to restore degraded land. The latest directive, they say, seeks to close interpretive gaps by anchoring the definition in geological and ecological criteria rather than administrative convenience. Such a move could compel states to revisit land records, reassess permits and strengthen enforcement against violations.
State governments in the affected belt have offered varying responses. Officials in Haryana and Rajasthan have said they will study the court’s directions and comply within stipulated timelines. Urban planners caution that a tighter definition could affect infrastructure projects already in the pipeline, while environmental groups argue that clarity is overdue and will reduce litigation by setting uniform benchmarks.
The Congress position reflects a broader political contest over environmental governance, with opposition parties accusing the Centre of diluting safeguards to fast-track investment. Party leaders said the Aravallis exemplify how incremental policy changes can cumulatively erode natural assets, and warned that failure to act decisively would impose long-term economic costs through water scarcity and public health burdens.