New Delhi: The Supreme Court Wednesday extended the stay on its earlier verdict concerning the definition of the Aravalli Hills and directed that the status quo be maintained until further orders.
A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant said that the interim direction — keeping in abeyance the earlier judgment prescribing a revised definition of the Aravalli Hills — would continue to operate.
The Bench, also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, reiterated the top court’s proposal to constitute a specialised expert committee to assist it in examining all aspects of the matter relating to the Aravalli range.
The apex court said that the proposed body would consist of eminent environmentalists, scientists and mining experts, working under the direct control and supervision of the Supreme Court.
The CJI Kant-led Bench asked all parties to suggest suitable names of experts with domain-specific expertise to be considered for inclusion in the proposed committee.
“Similarly, we have requested the learned Solicitor General as well as the amicus curiae to suggest the names of some eminent environmentalists/scientists, who are experts having special expertise, so that a body can be constituted to look into and examine all the aspects,” the apex court observed, adding that the committee would function under its direct control and supervision.
Taking note of submissions that illegal mining activities are continuing at scattered locations, the Supreme Court directed the Rajasthan government to ensure that no such unlawful extraction takes place in the Aravalli region.
It stressed that the law must take its own course against those indulging in illegal mining.
Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj, appearing for Rajasthan, assured the CJI Kant-led Bench that the state government would forthwith ensure that no illegal mining activities are carried out.
The Supreme Court further directed all parties to place on record a comprehensive note outlining the legal questions involved in the case. The matter has been listed for further hearing after four weeks.
