Justice BR Gavai On Aravalli Hills Judgment: Judgment Passed In Continuing Mandamus Proceedings, Subsiquent Bench Can Make Correction If Needed

Former Chief Justice of India, Justice BR Gavai has said in a television interview that the Aravalli Hills judgment, which was passed by a three Judge Bench headed by him, was passed in a continuing mandamus case and that subsiquent bench can correct the Judgment, if there is any error in it. 

A Bench comprising the then CJI BR Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice N.V. Anjaria had passed the Judgment in In Re : Issue Relating to Definition of Aravali Hills and Ranges on November 20, 2025, whereby it  had held that a a complete ban on mining across the Aravali range cannot be imposed.

During the interview, Justice Gavai, was asked, "Now that there is considerable public outrage on this matter and by informed people, not uninformed people, do you believe that if necessary this matter should be looked at again?"

Justice Gavai replied, "I have always stated that the law has to be static, the law has to be developing, the law has to be organic. We have, on various occasions, wherever we have found that earlier orders are not correct, the courts have always corrected them. Therefore, I was not inclined to speak to you because the matter may come under review, and normally the author of the judgment should not speak about the judgment, but since you insisted that this is an important issue, pertaining to the environment, I did. So if the subsequent benches find that something more is required, it is already always permissible...If the court subsequently finds that something more needs to be done, something needs to be corrected. The court can always do it." 

Juistice Gavai was asked during the interview given to Republic TV, "Justice Gavai, that I have a fundamental disagreement with your judgment, which as a citizen of India I'm entitled to have. The Aravallis stood for two billion years. The judgment that has redefined them was delivered 3 days before your retirement. What was the hurry?"

Justice Gavai responded, "See, I have been monitoring this issue for more than 3 years. Firstly, judges are not supposed to justify their judgments, but since this is an important issue and there is a misconception about the judgment, I agreed to speak to you...So if you go through the entire judgment, I had given the entire narration as to how the matter arose. There was some issue with regard to the difference adopted by the various states with regard to the definition of the Aravali Hills and Aravali ranges. So in order to settle those matters, we heard the matter on a number of occasions."

The interviewer then pointed out Paragraph 30 of the Judgment in which the Amicus Curiae had submitted that if the definition as recommended by the Committee is accepted, all the hills below the height of 100 metres would be opened up for mining and as a result the Aravali Hills and Ranges would lose their continuity and integrity. 

To which Justice Gavai responded, "So therefore if you read the further parts of the judgment, we have considered the rival submissions of both the parties. We have accepted the report of the committee, which consisted of various experts, various representatives of the state governments, and then we have specifically directed that no further mining activities would be conducted."

The interviewer then referred to Para 31 of the judgment, which mentions the submissions made by the Additional Solicitor General of India, who had submitted that if the definition of Aravali Hills and Ranges as suggested by the FSI is accepted, it would exclude large areas from the Aravali Hills and Ranges.

Justice Gavai remarked, "See, the Court is required to take into consideration the submissions of both sides. It's not necessary that the court has to accept the submissions made by one behalf. Amicus is a friend of the court, and the Court has to consider all the aspects, and after considering the aspects, the Court comes to an opinion. So it is not as if we have to accept the arguments of one side."

Justice Gavai was further asked, "What was the need to revisit this definition in the first place?"

Justice Gavai said that after going through several parts of the judgment, the necessity was felt because all four different States applied different yardstick in so far as the definition of the Aravali Hills and the definition of the Aravali ranges are concerned.

Interviewer further added, "There is a precautionary principle in law. The precautionary principle applies in this case, doesn't it? The precautionary principle in environmental cases means taking preventive action to protect the environment from serious or irreversible harm, even when there is no scientific evidence which is not fully conclusive. This means, as per the precedent of the law, the onus is on precaution and safety. I would like to ask you...why did you not apply the precautionary principle in this case?"

Justice Gavai responded, "If you read the operative part, it is very much clear that unless the MPSM is finalized by the MOF, no further mining licenses would be granted." 

Justice Gavai said that the Supreme Court has put certain stringent conditions which would protect the mining activities.

"We have looked at the cases, and this TN Godavaram and MC Mehta are continuing mandamus proceedings. They are not as if we have closed the matters. The matter is not closed. We have directed the MPSM to get the report, the MPSM report will come to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court will find out wherein the mining activities are to be permitted and where they are to be prohibited", Justice Gavai said.

Justice Gavai also added that he has always been advocating the concept of protection of the environment and sustainable development, and so wherever there is a conflict, a balance has to be struck; the environment has to be protected, and ecology has to be protected.

It was also added that the concerns were raised by the various states that there is no consistency insofar as the definition of Aravali Hills and the Ranges was concerned, and therefore, in order to bring a common uniform definition, the court was required to go into all these issues.