India, Dec. 28 -- The Supreme Court's order dated 20 November 2025, approving a uniform definition of the Aravalli Hills, is being presented as a long-overdue administrative clarification. I see it differently. In my considered scientific opinion, this order risks weakening the legal and ecological protection of India's oldest mountain system at a time when it is already under unprecedented stress. The Aravallis are not merely a collection of hills that rise above a certain height. They are a living geological system, nearly two billion years old, that regulates groundwater, controls desertification, moderates climate and sustains livelihoods across north-western India. Any attempt to define them using a simplistic height-based rule is not just scientifically inaccurate-it is ecologically dangerous. The definition approved by the Court relies primarily on a "100-metre local relief" criterion, combined with a 500-metre proximity rule to identify hill ranges. What troubles me most is that the very committee whose report forms the basis of this order explicitly acknowledged that slope and elevation vary widely across the Aravalli landscape. The committee's own data show that 23 out of 34 Aravalli districts have average slopes below six degrees, and 12 districts have slopes below three degrees. Many areas are gently undulating, pediplained or buried under sediments. The report correctly concludes that using only slope and elevation as criteria can lead to serious inclusion and exclusion errors. Yet, despite rejecting rigid thresholds as unreliable, the final recommendation reintroduces an even cruder one: a single 100-metre local relief rule. This is a clear internal scientific contradiction. You cannot first acknowledge heterogeneity and then impose uniformity without resolving that contradiction. Such an approach violates basic principles of scientific reasoning and administrative rationality. For decades, the Supreme Court's Aravalli protection jurisprudence has been rooted in geological continuity. The Aravallis are a Proterozoic fold belt extending across Rajasthan, Haryana, Delhi and Gujarat, defined by the Aravalli Supergroup, Delhi Supergroup, Abu Batholith and Erinpura Granite. The technical sub-committee initially recognised this geological framework. However, the final report astonishingly states that "geological age need not form part of the operational definition." This is where the definition becomes legally and scientifically vulnerable. By abandoning geology, the definition allows hills that are not Aravalli in origin but rise above 100 metres to be included, while excluding genuine Aravalli structures that are eroded, buried or have low surface relief. Large parts of Ajmer, Tonk, Nagaur and Sikar fall into this category. These areas may not look like hills to the naked eye, but they are critical for groundwater recharge, aquifer connectivity, dust control and micro-climate regulation. Excluding them creates a massive hydro-ecological blind spot. The 100-metre local relief rule is arbitrary under Indian geomorphological conditions. The committee's own tables show that average elevations across Aravalli districts range from barely 100-200 metres in some areas to over 600 metres in just one district. Applying a uniform threshold across such diversity defies the principles used by the Geological Survey of India and the Survey of India for landform classification. Equally troubling is the 500-metre "range connectivity rule," which defines an Aravalli range as two or more hills within 500 metres of each other. There is no geological basis, no geomorphological literature and no precedent in Indian mountain system mapping for such a rule. It is a policy fiction, not science. Perhaps the most alarming aspect of the committee's recommendations is the allowance for mining of "strategic, critical and atomic minerals" within the Aravallis. This provision effectively opens a legal backdoor into the most fragile core zones of the range. Deep-seated metallic ores are found precisely where the Aravallis are most vulnerable. Allowing exemptions contradicts earlier Supreme Court orders that recognised the Aravallis as a critical ecological barrier against desertification in north-west India. It also violates the precautionary principle and the public trust doctrine. I often hear the argument that existing environmental laws will continue to apply. That is beside the point. Legal dilution begins with definitional dilution. Once the boundaries of protection are weakened, enforcement inevitably follows suit. The committee report states that the Aravallis cannot be placed on the same footing as the Himalayas or Western Ghats. This comparison is misleading. The Aravallis are not less fragile; they are more so. Their rocks are older, more fractured, their soils thinner and their regenerative capacity far lower. Damage here is effectively permanent on human timescales. The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognised the Aravallis as an ecological shield against desertification. Any definition that lowers their protection threshold ignores both science and precedent. The committee report itself admits multiple scientific shortcomings, yet the final order is based on the same unresolved contradictions. A definition that is internally inconsistent, geologically incomplete and ecologically risky is not final-it is reviewable. In my view, the 20 November 2025 order meets every criterion for judicial reconsideration. The Aravalli crisis cannot be solved through short-term administrative fixes. It requires permanent, science-driven solutions. I have consistently advocated the creation of a National Aravalli Development Authority - a statutory body with inter-state jurisdiction, judicial oversight and scientific expertise - to regulate land use, mining, restoration and monitoring across Rajasthan, Haryana, Delhi and Gujarat. There must be an absolute ban on mining in ecologically sensitive zones such as ridge tops, forested hills, recharge areas and wildlife corridors, with no blanket exemptions, even for so-called strategic minerals. Once mined, the Aravallis can never be rebuilt. Technology must also play a central role. LiDAR-based drone surveys and satellite remote sensing can enable real-time detection of illegal mining and continuous health monitoring of the range. Finally, the Aravallis must be granted permanent legal status-either as an Ecologically Sensitive Area under the Environment Protection Act, 1986, or as a new category recognising them as an Ancient Mountain Heritage System of India. The Aravallis are not defined by height alone. They are a geological, hydrological and ecological system that quietly sustains north-west India. Reducing them to a numerical threshold is not clarity-it is complacency. If we weaken their definition today, we will weaken their protection tomorrow. And when the damage becomes visible, it will already be too late....