Protecting The Aravallis: Forest Conservation Amendment Act, 2023 Vs Sustainable Mining Plans

Policy Update

Amrutha Lahari Kolluru

Introduction

As stated in an IMPRI Policy Insights piece by TK Arun, (Arun T. K., 2026), Mountains are potential mines! This cogent statement seamlessly highlights an ideological threat that has the potential to manifest into an ecological one. As four states, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Haryana and Delhi share one of Earth’s oldest geological structures, they each uptake non-uniform definitions in defining the hills. Thus, allowing loopholes as sanctions for mining in the Aravallis.

Defining the Aravalli hills and the ranges was and still is a cumbersome policy exercise. Ecologically, politically and economically, the policy definitions have a lot at their stake. The recent mining contentions in the policy areas have opened controversies and contradictions have emerged.

Background

This tension between the judiciary and the legislature did not appear overnight. Back in 1996, the Godavarman proceedings had placed forests under legal protection using a broad, dictionary-style definition, no matter who owned the land. This wide definition kept large parts of the Aravallis shielded for decades.

Over time, however, disagreements grew on how exactly a forest, a hill or a range should be defined, especially when four different states were involved. In November 2025, the Supreme Court stepped in again, this time setting a 100 metre threshold to decide which landforms deserved protection. While meant to bring clarity, this order also opened up fresh room for interpretation. It is against this backdrop that the FCAA, 2023 and the MPSM now find themselves pulling policy in two different directions.

While the judiciary orders a freeze on new mining leases until a Mining Plan for Sustainable Mining (MPSM) is released to protect the vulnerable zones, the legislative order of Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, 2023, throws a roadblock by providing legal approval to extract in the name of ‘national development’. This roadblock stands in support of the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC) and its contentious exception of permitting mining for critical, strategic and atomic minerals through the Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation (MMDR) Act, 1957.

Consequently, this means that the mining in the Aravallis is not dead and is simply shifting its focus to critical minerals. In fact, the scope has shifted to a more ecologically appreciative lens which takes into account concepts like the carrying capacity, ecological safeguards and regulations. However, there is a major critique; one which is awakened by judicial delay, ministerial exceptions and legislative contradictions.

Functioning

The mining contentions are led through a series of judicial and legislative rulings. These include the FCAA, 2023, MPSM and the MMDR, 1957 act. Although they are aligned with ecological perspectives, they are riddled with contradictions and misappropriations which are elucidated in the context of this article.

The Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, 2023 strives towards striking an ecological balance in forestry management and development. By clearing up boundary rules, speeding up border & defence projects, encouraging private-tree planting, promoting eco-tourism and local jobs and supporting climate targets, the amendment seeks to align forest land governance with India’s climate goals, national security infrastructure, and local economic needs.

The framework narrows statutory protection strictly to lands which are officially recorded as forests in government records after 1980, replacing the broader dictionary-definition criteria established under the 1996 Godavarman proceedings. Furthermore, the bill cuts red tape for military and national security construction within 100 km of international boundaries. It also exempts private and non-government land plantations from strict forest laws and aims to encourage individual and private entities to grow more trees without fearing that they will lose control of their land.(FCA Bill, 2023)

The Management Plan for Sustainable Mining commissioned by the Supreme Court of India, is a draft under progress. The plan is to be modelled using the existing Saranda Forest & Chaibasa MPSM as a blueprint. The MPSM is operationalised through the delineation of zones into Zones I and II, identification of protected areas, imposing Forest Clearance (FC) and Environmental Clearance (EC) conditions and by conducting carrying capacity studies of the mining areas. (MPSM in Saranda and Chaibasa in Singbhum District, Jharkhand, MoEFCC, 2018)

(i) Delineation of Zones: The Saranda and Chaibasa Forest MPSM has delineated Zones I and II for mining. While the actively opened iron ore mining leases, that span over 10,670 hectares are categorised as Zone I, Zone II consists of secondary proposed mining compartments spanning 2161.59 hectares.

(ii) Identification of Protected Areas: The Aravallis are protected by prohibiting mining in the protected areas, eco-sensitive zones, tiger-reserves, wetlands and in CAMPA (Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority) plantation sites. The ICFRE (Indian Council for Forestry Research and Education) identifies these sites and geo-references them. Further, mining sites require mandatory approvals and leases from their respective FC and EC. Upon exhausting the mined area, leaseholders are legally obligated to conduct biological restoration through massive re-plantation.

(iii) ICFRE Carrying Capacity: The capacity assessment report by ICFRE states that there is an extraction cap of 64 MTPA (Million Tonnes Per Annum) on iron ore mining. It, however, allows a potential enhancement of production capacity up to 100 MTPA which is conditional on the strengthening of dedicated conveyor systems, railway sidings and implementation of environmental mitigation measures. By its reassessment of iron ores reserves based on the revised IBM (Indian Bureau of Mines) threshold and its standards on monitoring and environmental safeguards, the framework is brought to a systematic light encompassing any and all regulatory parameters to prevent unchecked environmental degradation.

Until the preparation of a detailed sustainable MPSM, the supreme court has ordered an interim freeze on any new mining leases. However, it allows exceptions in the case of atomic minerals listed under Part B, critical and strategic minerals listed under Part D of the First Schedule and minerals notified under the Seventh schedule in the Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation (MMDR) Act, 1957. The act controls the regulation of mines and development of minerals in India and standardises key legal definitions, including composite licence, mining lease, prospecting operations, reconnaissance operations, minor minerals, and notified minerals which are important for obtaining permissions to mine (MMDR Act, 1957).

Table 1: Comparative Legal Framework

Regulatory Mechanism / Act	Scope & Criteria	Conservation Impact / Loophole
Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act (FCAA), 2023	Restricts legal protection to lands recorded as forests post-1980.	Excludes unrecorded contiguous forest lands and “Gair Mumkin Pahar”.
Supreme Court 100m Threshold (2025)	Protects contiguous landforms rising $\ge 100\text{ m}$ above local ground level.	Excludes low-lying ridges, spurs, and lower elevations essential for groundwater recharge.
MMDR Act, 1957 (Part B & D Exceptions)	Permits mining exemptions for atomic, critical, and strategic minerals.	Overrides regional conservation mandates under the guise of statutory compliance.

Source: Compiled by Author based on the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, 2023, the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, and the Supreme Court Order dated Nov 20, 2025.

Impact

The rising contradictions in the legislative and the judicial outcomes have thrown an impact trifecta of threshold definition controversy, grey areas and exemptions contradictory to the goal. The governance over the misappropriation of the definition of the Aravalli Hills and the Aravalli Ranges have put across varying thresholds which were taken advantage of to extract minerals in unsustainable ways.

The 100 m threshold definition of forests, a supreme court oversight, has exposed over 90% of the forest land to potential mining plans, leading to a possible desertification of one of Earth’s oldest geographics. The Godavarman proceedings in 1996, had the forests under legal protection, regardless of ownership, had they come under the textbook definition of a forest. However, the FCAA, 2023 had changed the plans to officially declare restriction in the legal protection to lands declared as forests under the government records after 1980. With the 100m threshold, the policy holds a double loophole.

As a result, the “Gair Mumkin Pahar” or the mountainous wastelands have been left exposed to mining leases. To add to the bone of contention, the strategic exemption of critical and atomic minerals as stated in the MMDR Act, have created an illusion of sustainable protection to the hills. The exemption is, in fact, supported by the eco-restoration rules of the MPSM, leading to fragmentation. By prioritising technicalities over environmental continuity, these provisions subvert the Precautionary Principle and jeopardise the vital natural resources across the range which pave the way to emerging ecological issues. (T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2025)

Emerging Issues

Impending desertification: The FCAA, 2023 ruling of defining the forests until their state of existence in the year 1980, leaves 90% of the hill range exposed to the clutches of mining. This exposure increases the risk of desertification as the soils and vegetation are stripped away, reducing the moisture retaining capacity that eventually leads to erosion in the Aravallis.

Biodiversity Loss: Home to a wide range of flora and fauna like the Indian Leopard, Striped Hyena, Golden jackal and Nilgai, the very dense forests of the Aravallis can suffer a biodiversity loss due to habitat displacement caused due to mining activities.

Groundwater depletion: Mining in the Aravallis could disturb the natural aquifers by breaking open the rock layers and recharge channels. This hinders the groundwater recharge capabilities and puts groundwater dependent regions under risk of scarcity of water.

Socioeconomic consequences: Since technically, the MPSM permits the mining for strategic and critical minerals through these tensions, it puts the tribal populations and the urban areas under risk due to mining processes.

Regulatory Arbitrage: The present contentions still leave room for arbitrage in the definition of the hills and the ranges amongst the four states involved. Although a mining lease freeze was ordered, the FCAA, 2023 created a gray zone, Gair Mumkin Pahar_a vulnerability.

Inter-state administrative friction: Although the legislation left it to the states to build their own regulations in preserving the mining regions sustainably, the MPSM’s landscape-level carrying-capacity model forces a central, unified zoning approach across state borders. Externalities like disputes over land records, revenue losses from halted leases, and who holds the ultimate authority in defining the mining zones is a critical emerging issue.

Way Forward

Recalling the Doctrine of Basic Structure: The doctrine of Basic structure reinstates that the Indian Constitution cannot be diluted, even through amendment, which means that it safeguards against arbitrary amendments, protecting foundational values and ensuring the Constitution’s stability. (Vajiram & Ravi, 2026) This offers a route to correct the FCAA, 2023’s gray zones if integrated with Article 21 of the constitution that stresses on the right to be free from the adverse impacts of climate change and the right to a clean environment. In other words, the doctrine does not stop Parliament from amending forest law, but it does mean such amendments cannot come at the cost of the environmental protections the Constitution is built to guarantee.

Strengthening the Green Barrier Against Desertification: The Supreme Court’s judgement on the definition of the Aravalli hills states the initiation of the Aravalli Green Wall Project in its Paragraph 9 for the prevention of desertification and land degradation. This could allow ecological buffer zones, prevent Thar desert expansion and even bridge the gap created by narrow statutory definitions (T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2025).

Inter-state coordination: One of the oldest geological structures in the world is shared among Indian states with improper definitions for forests. This calls on the urgent need to integrate and coordinate on the conservation goals. This will help eliminate administrative loopholes.

Mining Contentions in the Aravallis is a microcosm of India’s larger struggle. The FCAA 2023 represents an executive push toward mineral self-reliance and rapid infrastructure. The MPSM represents a desperate judicial effort to save a collapsing ecological shield by taking over environmental zoning from the executive.

References

Ministry of Mines. (2023). The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2023 (Act No. 16 of 2023). Government of India. https://mines.gov.in/admin/storage/app/uploads/642d055d669011680672093.pdf
Press Information Bureau. (2025, December 21). Document on Aravalli Hills regulation and sustainable development. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India. https://static.pib.gov.in/WriteReadData/specificdocs/documents/2025/dec/doc20251221740901.pdf
Press Information Bureau. (2025, December 21). Aravalli Hills: Protecting ecology and ensuring sustainable mining (Factsheet No. 150596). Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India. https://www.pib.gov.in/FactsheetDetails.aspx?id=150596&NoteId=150596&ModuleId=16&reg=3&lang=2
Saranda Forest Division. (2018). Management plan for sustainable mining (MPSM). Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. https://www.sarandaforest.in/publications/management-plan-for-sustainable-mining-mpsm
PRS Legislative Research. (2023). The Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill, 2023 (Bill No. 64 of 2023). Lok Sabha, Parliament of India. https://prsindia.org/files/bills_acts/bills_parliament/2023/Forest%20(Conservation)%20Amendment%20Bill,%202023.pdf
Vajiram & Ravi. (2026). Basic structure doctrine of the Indian Constitution. UPSC Exam Prep Insights. https://vajiramandravi.com/upsc-exam/basic-structure/
Supreme Court of India. (2025, November 20). T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202/1995). https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/1995/2997/2997_1995_1_1502_66178_Judgement_20-Nov-2025.pdf
Arun, T. K. (2026, January 15). Redefining the Aravallis: Who decides? IMPRI Policy Insights. https://www.impriindia.com/insights/redefining-the-aravallis-who-decides/

About the Contributor

Amrutha Lahari Kolluru is a graduate in M. A. Environmental Economics from Madras School of Economics. Passionate about policy analysis, climate research, sustainability and their integration, she aspires to create evidence-based solutions for environmental challenges.