The Crossbill News Desk
Several scientists, environmental groups and former Indian Forest Service officers have urged the Supreme Court to reconstitute the newly formed High-Powered Committee tasked with reviewing the definition of the Aravalli hill range, arguing that its present composition does not allow for an independent and impartial assessment.
In separate letters sent to the Chief Justice of India on June 18 and 19, they raised concerns over the predominance of current and former government officials on the panel and questioned whether it could objectively reassess an issue that has already sparked widespread controversy, The Wire reported.
Among those who approached the apex court are scientist Ravi Chopra, former Indian Forest Service officer Prakriti Srivastava and the NGO Vanshakti.
The objections come weeks after the Supreme Court, on June 3, announced the formation of a five-member High-Powered Committee to revisit the definition of the Aravalli range.
The Director General of the Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education (ICFRE) was appointed ex-officio Chairperson, while the panel also includes Subhash Ashutosh, former Director General of the Forest Survey of India, Rajendra Kumar Sharma, former Director of the Geological Survey of India, Brij Mohan Singh Rathore, former Joint Secretary in the Union environment ministry, and Ashok K. Bhatnagar, former Professor and Head of Botany at the University of Delhi. The court further directed that an officer of at least Director rank from the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change serve as Member Secretary.
Two academics — Jagdish Krishnaswamy of the Indian Institute for Human Settlements and Laxmikant Sharma of the Central University of Haryana — were named Special Invitees who could be consulted whenever required.
However, the letters to the Chief Justice pointed out that both the chairperson and the member secretary are institutionally subordinate to the Secretary of the Union environment ministry and function under the ministry’s administrative control. According to the representations, this arrangement violates established norms governing review bodies.
“It is a well-established principle that anybody constituted to review the findings of an earlier committee should possess at least an equivalent, if not higher, level of authority, independence and expertise,” the letters noted.
The concerns stem partly from the fact that the previous committee examining the same issue was headed by the environment ministry’s Secretary and had endorsed a disputed definition of the Aravallis that environmentalists argued could leave large portions of the range vulnerable to activities such as mining and real estate development. Protests across the Aravalli region had followed, prompting the Supreme Court to take suo motu cognisance of the matter in December and promise a fresh review.
The letters further noted that the Board of Governors of the ICFRE is chaired by the same Secretary who headed the earlier panel, while the Union environment minister serves as the institution’s President. Highlighting this overlap, Stalin D., director of Vanshakti, wrote to the Chief Justice on June 18, saying, “Consequently, the present Chairperson functions within the administrative hierarchy of the very Ministry whose earlier report is required to be independently examined.”
Questions have also been raised over the lack of regional expertise on the committee, the news website reported.
In her letter, Prakriti Srivastava argued that although three retired forest officers are part of the panel, none has worked in Haryana, Rajasthan or the National Capital Region, which she described as areas “which are at the epicentre of mining and real estate pressures”.
“The Aravallis are a unique socio-political-economic biophysical and regulatory environment and it is necessary that the committee members should be persons with local field experience and expertise. Besides, all are ex-government officers probably owing [sic] allegiance to the system,” Srivastava’s letter read.
Srivastava also questioned the absence of specialists from several key disciplines. She said the committee lacked “independent domain experts” and warned that this “would defeat the very purpose of an independent re-examination of the entire issue”. According to her, the panel should include experts in wildlife, Geographic Information Systems, hydrology, microecology and geology.
She further pointed out that despite Supreme Court orders issued in 2024 and 2025 directing the identification, demarcation and mapping of all forests in accordance with the Godavaraman judgment, the exercise remains incomplete. In her communication to the court, she argued that this work “is a pre-requisite before any exercise for defining Aravallis”.
With multiple representations now before the Chief Justice, environmentalists and experts have pressed for a broader and more independent panel, contending that any attempt to redefine the ecologically sensitive Aravalli range must be preceded by scientific mapping and carried out by specialists with relevant expertise and autonomy from the authorities whose earlier conclusions are under review.
In separate letters sent to the Chief Justice of India on June 18 and 19, they raised concerns over the predominance of current and former government officials on the panel and questioned whether it could objectively reassess an issue that has already sparked widespread controversy, The Wire reported.
Among those who approached the apex court are scientist Ravi Chopra, former Indian Forest Service officer Prakriti Srivastava and the NGO Vanshakti.
The objections come weeks after the Supreme Court, on June 3, announced the formation of a five-member High-Powered Committee to revisit the definition of the Aravalli range.
The Director General of the Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education (ICFRE) was appointed ex-officio Chairperson, while the panel also includes Subhash Ashutosh, former Director General of the Forest Survey of India, Rajendra Kumar Sharma, former Director of the Geological Survey of India, Brij Mohan Singh Rathore, former Joint Secretary in the Union environment ministry, and Ashok K. Bhatnagar, former Professor and Head of Botany at the University of Delhi. The court further directed that an officer of at least Director rank from the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change serve as Member Secretary.
Two academics — Jagdish Krishnaswamy of the Indian Institute for Human Settlements and Laxmikant Sharma of the Central University of Haryana — were named Special Invitees who could be consulted whenever required.
However, the letters to the Chief Justice pointed out that both the chairperson and the member secretary are institutionally subordinate to the Secretary of the Union environment ministry and function under the ministry’s administrative control. According to the representations, this arrangement violates established norms governing review bodies.
“It is a well-established principle that anybody constituted to review the findings of an earlier committee should possess at least an equivalent, if not higher, level of authority, independence and expertise,” the letters noted.
The concerns stem partly from the fact that the previous committee examining the same issue was headed by the environment ministry’s Secretary and had endorsed a disputed definition of the Aravallis that environmentalists argued could leave large portions of the range vulnerable to activities such as mining and real estate development. Protests across the Aravalli region had followed, prompting the Supreme Court to take suo motu cognisance of the matter in December and promise a fresh review.
The letters further noted that the Board of Governors of the ICFRE is chaired by the same Secretary who headed the earlier panel, while the Union environment minister serves as the institution’s President. Highlighting this overlap, Stalin D., director of Vanshakti, wrote to the Chief Justice on June 18, saying, “Consequently, the present Chairperson functions within the administrative hierarchy of the very Ministry whose earlier report is required to be independently examined.”
Questions have also been raised over the lack of regional expertise on the committee, the news website reported.
In her letter, Prakriti Srivastava argued that although three retired forest officers are part of the panel, none has worked in Haryana, Rajasthan or the National Capital Region, which she described as areas “which are at the epicentre of mining and real estate pressures”.
“The Aravallis are a unique socio-political-economic biophysical and regulatory environment and it is necessary that the committee members should be persons with local field experience and expertise. Besides, all are ex-government officers probably owing [sic] allegiance to the system,” Srivastava’s letter read.
Srivastava also questioned the absence of specialists from several key disciplines. She said the committee lacked “independent domain experts” and warned that this “would defeat the very purpose of an independent re-examination of the entire issue”. According to her, the panel should include experts in wildlife, Geographic Information Systems, hydrology, microecology and geology.
She further pointed out that despite Supreme Court orders issued in 2024 and 2025 directing the identification, demarcation and mapping of all forests in accordance with the Godavaraman judgment, the exercise remains incomplete. In her communication to the court, she argued that this work “is a pre-requisite before any exercise for defining Aravallis”.
With multiple representations now before the Chief Justice, environmentalists and experts have pressed for a broader and more independent panel, contending that any attempt to redefine the ecologically sensitive Aravalli range must be preceded by scientific mapping and carried out by specialists with relevant expertise and autonomy from the authorities whose earlier conclusions are under review.
Comments (0)
Leave a Comment