The Supreme Court’s newly constituted High Powered Committee (HPC) to review the definition and protection of the Aravalli mountain range has drawn criticism from former Indian Forest Service officer Prakriti Srivastava, who argues that the panel’s composition raises concerns about its independence and commitment to conservation.
In an opinion article published on June 24, Srivastava said the committee offers “little reason for hope” for the long term protection of the Aravallis, alleging that its members are largely drawn from former government institutions and may not provide an impartial assessment.
The Supreme Court constituted the five member committee on May 25, 2026, after staying its own November 20, 2025 order that had defined the Aravallis as areas rising at least 100 metres above the surrounding terrain. The court later acknowledged widespread public criticism of that definition and ordered a fresh review involving expert opinion and stakeholder consultation.
According to Srivastava, the court decision initially generated optimism among conservationists and local communities, who hoped the review would strengthen protection of the ecologically fragile mountain range. However, she argues that subsequent developments have weakened that expectation.
The committee is chaired by the Director General of the Indian Council of Forest Research and Education (ICFRE) and includes former senior officials from the Forest Survey of India (FSI), Geological Survey of India (GSI), the Union Environment Ministry, and a retired botany professor from Delhi University.
Srivastava contends that the committee composition presents potential conflicts of interest. She argues that the ICFRE Director General reports to the Union Environment Ministry, whose earlier Expert Committee recommendations formed the basis of the Supreme Court’s 2025 order. In her view, this creates the perception that the new review may not be fully independent.
She also questioned the inclusion of a former Geological Survey of India official with expertise in mineral exploration, suggesting that the appointment indicates mining interests could receive greater priority during the review process.
The opinion article further notes that several committee members have limited professional experience working in the Aravalli landscape across Haryana, Rajasthan and the National Capital Region, where mining, urban expansion and real estate development have placed significant pressure on the mountain ecosystem.
Srivastava also expressed concern that the committee lacks independent experts in ecology, wildlife conservation and community engagement. Although experts from the Indian Institute for Human Settlements and the Central University of Haryana have been invited as special advisers, she argues that their recommendations are not binding and could be overlooked.
The article also criticizes the committee’s terms of reference, stating that they do not explicitly include identifying and demarcating all categories of forests in the Aravallis, which the author believes is necessary for effective protection under previous Supreme Court judgments.
Drawing comparisons with earlier expert panels such as the Gadgil Committee and the Pronab Sen Committee, both of which were chaired by independent experts, Srivastava argues that the current High Powered Committee lacks similar independence.
She concludes that the panel appears more likely to reinforce the recommendations of the Union Environment Ministry’s October 2025 Expert Committee than to undertake a fresh, conservation focused review. According to the author, stronger representation from independent scientists, wildlife experts and local stakeholders would have enhanced the committee’s credibility and its ability to safeguard the Aravalli ecosystem.