Nearly six months after the Supreme Court reopened the debate over how the Aravalli range should be defined, a group of scientists, environmental policy experts, conservationists and a retired senior forest officer have approached the Chief Justice of India, questioning whether the court-appointed committee tasked with revisiting the issue is sufficiently independent to do the job.
The representatives submitted letters separately over this week, challenging the composition of the high-powered committee constituted by the Supreme Court on 25 May 2026. In these letters, experts argue that the panel falls short of the standard set by the court itself when it revisited the matter on December 29, 2025, and called for a “fair, impartial and independent expert opinion".
The intervention comes in a case that has evolved far beyond a technical dispute over maps and hill contours. At its centre is the question of how one of India’s oldest mountain systems should be defined and protected, a decision that could influence future mining, conservation and land-use policies across large parts of Rajasthan, Haryana, Delhi and Gujarat.
Among those who have written to the Chief Justice are CP Rajendran, a geoscientist and adjunct professor at the National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bengaluru; Ravi Chopra, scientist and former chairperson of the Supreme Court-appointed High Powered Committee on the Char Dham project; environmental policy expert Sagar Dhara; retired Principal Chief Conservator of Forests Prakriti Srivastava; and members of conservation networks working on ecological issues across India.
While their letters differ in emphasis, they converge on a common concern. The experts argue that the committee reviewing the earlier process of defining the Aravallis includes officials and institutions that remain linked to the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, raising questions about whether the review can be seen as fully independent.
Rajendran argued that the present arrangement departs from the spirit of the Supreme Court’s intervention. “The composition, as it stands, does not align with the spirit of the 29 December 2025 order, which explicitly called for an independent and fair expert opinion free from executive influence," he wrote. He further stated that the structure of the committee rendered it “incapable of functioning with the requisite impartiality and independence".
The concern has also been echoed by Ravi Chopra, whose views carry particular weight because of his experience leading a Supreme Court-appointed expert committee. Recalling his experience on court-mandated panels, Chopra wrote: “In both cases it was my disappointing experience that serving and retired government officials and scientists from government-funded institutions on the committees never voted against the views of the government in power, despite orally expressing opinions to the contrary during discussions."
“Therefore, I have grave doubts about their ability to express written unbiased understanding/opinions on the contested issues," he added.
The concerns raised in the letters are not limited to the composition of the committee. Several of the experts argue that the debate over the Aravallis has increasingly been reduced to a technical question of hill definition, while broader ecological issues remain inadequately represented.
Their representations point to concerns highlighted during the Supreme Court proceedings, including submissions made by the Amicus Curiae in February 2026. Those submissions argued that the Aravallis should be viewed as a contiguous ecological system rather than solely through the prism of mining regulation. They also revisited earlier court directions under which the Forest Survey of India was asked to map the entire Aravalli range and not restrict the exercise to peaks exceeding a 100-metre threshold.
Some of the experts have also questioned whether all relevant scientific findings were adequately reflected in the process that culminated in the November 2025 judgment, a concern that has prompted calls for a broader examination of the material considered during the proceedings.
The letters further contend that the newly constituted committee lacks representation from several disciplines essential to understanding the Aravallis as an ecological landscape. These include hydrology, geology, wildlife conservation, public health, landscape ecology, GIS mapping and traditional livelihoods. Some signatories have also pointed to the absence of experts with extensive field experience in the Aravalli region itself.
Prakriti Srivastava, a retired Indian Forest Service officer, framed the issue as one of public confidence. “The Court must not only do the right thing, it must appear to do the right thing," she wrote while urging a reconsideration of the committee’s composition.
The experts have urged the Supreme Court to modify the 25 May order and reconstitute the committee with independent scientists and specialists drawn from multiple disciplines. They have also sought direct submission of the committee’s report to the court, broader consultation with communities affected by mining and environmental degradation, and additional time for the exercise.
The demand is rooted in precedents cited by several signatories, who point to earlier occasions when the Supreme Court and the Union government constituted independent expert bodies to address complex environmental questions. These include committees examining the Char Dham project, waste management issues, the Western Ghats and other ecologically sensitive regions.
For the signatories, the issue is not merely where the Aravallis begin or end on a map. They argue that a mountain range that influences groundwater recharge, biodiversity, climate resilience and the spread of desertification across north-western India requires a review process that is not only scientifically robust but also demonstrably independent.
What began as a dispute over the definition of a hill range has thus evolved into a larger debate about environmental governance, scientific credibility and the manner in which India’s most consequential ecological decisions are made.
