‘Conspiracy to sell Aravallis’: Gehlot accuses Centre on new definition of Aravallis

Jaipur: The recent changes in the definition of the Aravalli range and the restructuring of environmental oversight mechanisms have triggered a fresh debate over the Centre’s approach to conservation and regulatory governance, with former Rajasthan Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot raising concerns about institutional independence and policy intent.

Gehlot questioned the Union government’s revised definition of the Aravalli hills, particularly the introduction of a “100-metre criterion” arguing that it must be assessed in conjunction with recent administrative decisions affecting environmental watchdogs. According to him, the changes could have far-reaching implications for mining regulation and ecological protection in sensitive regions.

A key point of contention highlighted by Gehlot is the September 5, 2023 notification that altered the structure of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC). Originally constituted in 2002 under the supervision of the Supreme Court, the CEC functioned as an independent body tasked with monitoring environmental compliance.

The notification brought the committee under the administrative control of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, converting it into a permanent government body.

Gehlot said this shift raised questions about regulatory autonomy, noting that earlier appointments to the CEC required Supreme Court approval, whereas the new framework places appointment powers entirely with the Centre. He cited past instances where the committee’s independence had played a crucial role in exposing illegal mining cases.

The former chief minister also drew attention to recent developments surrounding the Sariska Tiger Reserve. He pointed out that proposals to rationalise the boundaries of the Critical Tiger Habitat (CTH) had moved through multiple approval stages within a matter of days in June 2025, an unusually rapid process for wildlife clearances. The Supreme Court later stayed the decision and sought explanations over the expedited approvals.

According to Gehlot, the Sariska case illustrates broader concerns about how environmental safeguards are being reviewed and modified. He argued that frequent attempts to redraw protected area boundaries could weaken conservation frameworks established over decades.

Calling Union Minister Bhupender Yadav’s statements incomplete and misleading, Gehlot pointed to the Sariska Tiger Reserve as proof of the government’s real intent.

The Rajasthan government had declared 881 sq km as Critical Tiger Habitat (CTH) for Sariska, banning mining within one kilometre of the area. In 2025, the BJP-led Rajasthan government proposed a “rationalisation” of the CTH boundaries under the pretext of land exchange.

“The real objective,” Gehlot said, “was to revive more than 50 marble and dolomite mines that were shut down because they fell within the prohibited zone. By pushing back the boundary, these mines would have been legitimised.”

Gehlot highlighted the extraordinary speed with which approvals were granted, June 24, 2025, Rajasthan State Wildlife Board cleared the proposal June 25, 2025, National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) approved it June 26, 2025, Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife stamped it. This followed the deliberate postponement of the National Wildlife Board meeting from June 11 to June 26 to accommodate the proposal.

Gehlot further referred to media reports alleging pressure from mining interests to restart operations in restricted zones. He said such claims underscore the need for transparent decision-making and independent oversight, particularly in ecologically fragile regions like the Aravalli range.

Rejecting assurances from the Centre that mining activity would be limited to a small fraction of the Aravalli area, Gehlot said repeated efforts to amend definitions and boundaries warranted closer scrutiny. He emphasised that environmental protection must be guided by ecological considerations rather than administrative convenience.

The developments have reignited discussions among policymakers, environmental experts, and civil society groups on balancing economic activity with conservation, and on the importance of maintaining independent regulatory institutions to safeguard India’s natural heritage.