In this fiery exclusive for Republic World, Arnab Goswami engages in an “epic face-off” with the former Chief Justice of India, Justice B.R. Gavai, over the controversial Aravalli verdict delivered just days before his retirement. Arnab challenges the “tearing hurry” of the judgment and argues that the new definition of the Aravalli hills could open the ancient mountain range to irreversible environmental damage by mining interests.
Justice Gavai defends the ruling, stating it was necessary to create a uniform definition across four states to actually curb illegal mining and insists that no new licenses will be granted until a sustainable management plan is finalized. From debates over the “precautionary principle” in environmental law to the possibility of a future judicial review, this conversation is a high-stakes clash between media scrutiny and judicial reasoning.
The Opening Challenge: Why The Rush?
ARNAB GOSWAMI: Ladies and gentlemen, it is my attempt always to go to the nub of the issue. Joining us is Justice B.R. Gavai, former Chief Justice of India and the author of this judgment on the Aravallis, which is being debated all over the country. Justice Gavai, I hope you will go through my questions and give me appropriate replies because fundamentally, and I would like to begin by saying this, Justice Gavai, that I have a fundamental disagreement with your judgment, which as a citizen of India, I’m entitled to have.
The Aravalli stood for 2 billion years. The judgment that has redefined them was delivered three days before your retirement. What was the hurry, Justice Gavai? The judgment was delivered on the 20th of November, and you retired on the 23rd of November. What was the tearing hurry?
JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI: See, I have been monitoring this issue for more than three years. If you go through the judgment we had raised, firstly, since judges are not supposed to justify their judgment, but since this is an important issue and there’s a misconception about the judgment, I agreed to speak to you.
If you go through the judgment entirely, the difficulty that the persons speak about the judgment without even reading them in the entirety. So if you go through the entire judgment, I had given the entire narration as to how the matter arose. There was some issue with regard to the difference adopted by the various states with regard to definition of Aravali Hills and Aravali Ranges.
So in order to settle those matters, we heard the matter on number of occasions, various issues were framed, and after hearing the matter, once you hear the matter at length, if you don’t decide the judgment, it’s like shocking your judgment.
ARNAB GOSWAMI: Justice Gavai, may I ask you, how can you pass that comment on me, to me, on my program that I have made my judgments on the issue without having gone through the judgment? I would politely, completely disagree with this presumption of yours and remind you that I have seen your judgment in entirety. In fact, no, I don’t think you can pass a judgment like that, pass a comment like that on my observation, sir. I take offense to that.
The Mining License Debate
JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI: Having said that, what I’ve seen on your program is that it is being projected as if we have given a complete license for mining in the Aravali Hills. But that’s not correct. If you go through the judgment, we have in fact imposed certain more restrictions on mining in the Aravali Hills and Ranges. We have directed—
ARNAB GOSWAMI: Your own judgment makes it clear on paragraph 30 that your final word went against the Amicus Curiae, who is a Friend of the Court. Very explicitly, Justice Gavai, in paragraph 30 of your judgment, it notes that the Amicus Curiae had stated in his submission, quote: “If the definition recommended by the Committee is accepted, all the heights, hills below the height of 100 meters would be opened up for mining. And as a result the Aravali hills and the ranges would lose their continuity and integrity. It would totally endanger the environment and ecology of the mountains.”
JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI: So therefore, if you read the further parts of the judgment, we have considered the rival submissions of both the parties. We have accepted the report of the Committee which was consisting of various experts, various representatives of the state governments, and then we on a surrender pattern, we have specifically directed that no further mining activities would be conducted.
ARNAB GOSWAMI: Justice Gavai, in fact, in para 31, the arguments of the Additional Solicitor General have been documented. I’ve read that as contradicting what the Amicus Curiae had said on the premise that, and I quote: “It would exclude large areas from the Aravalli hills and ranges. She, however submitted that if the definition suggested by the Committee is adopted,” unquote.
If the Amicus Curiae, who is a friend of the Court, has explicitly taken the view contrarian to the committee view, which has ministry at its helm, which has government at its helm, shouldn’t the Court have taken the view of the Amicus and not that of the government pioneered by the ASG?
JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI: See, the Court is required to take into consideration the submissions of both the sides. The Court cannot accept—it’s not necessary that always the Court has to accept the submissions made by one. Maybe the learned Amicus, Amicus is a friend of the Court. The Court has to consider all the aspects and after considering that aspect, the Court comes to an opinion. So it is not as if that we have to accept the arguments of one side into—
The FSI Criteria Controversy
ARNAB GOSWAMI: But the Amicus Curiae, respected Mr. Justice Gavai, was going by the FSI criteria. It said that the FSI criteria better preserve the ecological integrity of the Aravalis. With due respect to you, Justice Gavai, the FSI is comprised of India’s topmost and most respected experts on matters of ecology and environment.
Does that not matter to you? Are the experts less aware than the government or for that matter, less aware than the judiciary?
JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI: FSI was also a part of the larger committee which was appointed by the Court. The Committee consisted of various experts from various fields, including the representative of the FSI. And the report which was submitted was not only by the government. It was a report of the experts. It was only submitted through the government.
ARNAB GOSWAMI: I am quoting from your judgment para 27. The FSI had clearly defined the Aravallis in 2010 as quote: “Under slope over 3 degrees, foothill bubble buffer equal 100 meters, interhill distance or valley width equal 500 meter. And for the area enclosed by the above defined hills from all sides.” What was the need to revisit this definition in the first place?
JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI: There was no question of—therefore, I—
ARNAB GOSWAMI: I mean why did you have to revisit this definition in the first place?
JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI: So therefore I made a submission that the comments are made without reading the judgment. If you go through the earlier parts of the judgment, the necessity was felt because all the four different states applied different yardsticks in so far as the definition of Aravali hills and definition of Aravali ranges are concerned. So—
ARNAB GOSWAMI: That can’t be a reason of the fact that the old definition—
JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI: Please listen to me sir.
ARNAB GOSWAMI: Please sir. The fact is the old definition recognizes slope, buffer, valley, enclosure and continuity. The very elements that make a mountain range a living ecological system. Not a collection of isolated bumps. And yet the court walked away from it.
JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI: Why not walk through it? On the contrary, if you read the operative paragraphs as well as the earlier paragraphs, we have specifically said that on a surrender pattern the MSFP has to be prepared wherein the mining—mining which it will provide, which are the areas where the mining will be prohibited and where the sustainable mining would be permitted.
The Precautionary Principle Question
ARNAB GOSWAMI: Sir, Justice Gavai, there is a precautionary principle in law. The precautionary principle applies in this case, doesn’t it? The precautionary principle in environmental cases means taking preventive action to protect the environment from serious or irreversible harm even when there is scientific evidence which is not fully conclusive.
This means, as per precedent of the law, the onus is on precaution and safety. Why didn’t you apply—I would like to ask you. You have been the Chief Justice of India. The nation wants to know from you. You’ve been Chief Justice of India in this case. Why did you not apply the precautionary principle in this case? There have been innumerable matter precedents of precautionary principles being applied by the honorable courts on matters of environment. I don’t find those quoted in your judgment. May I ask you why?
JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI: If you read the operative part, it is very much clear that unless the MSFP is finalized by the IFTRI and finalized by the MOEF, no further mining licenses would be granted.
ARNAB GOSWAMI: Justice Gavai, Consumer Education and Research Centre vs Union of India 1995. The Supreme Court declared the precautionary principle a legally enforceable principle crucial for sustainable development and shifted the onus of proof onto polluters. M.C. Mehta vs Union of India Taj Trapezium case 1996, the Supreme Court used the precautionary principle to stop industries from burning coal near the Taj Mahal recognizing harm from pollution.
I am not an advocate but I am asking the former Chief Justice of India matter of principle. Why did Justice Gavai not apply? Why did the three judge bench not apply the precautionary principle in this case?
JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI: If you kindly go through the operative part clause 4 and 5 make it very much clear that unless the MSFP is finalized by IFTRI and MOEF, no further mining leases will be granted in all four states in the Aravali hills. If that is not a precautionary—
ARNAB GOSWAMI: The precautionary principle means that in matters that are likely to affect the environment, it is not required to prove that the activity will cause harm but that the activity is prohibited unless it can be established that it is benign. No one is suggesting here that deforesting the Aravallis will—
JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI: Sir, what does the prohibition—what does the prohibition on the new mining licenses amount to?
ARNAB GOSWAMI: Okay, so then let me ask you. The AP Pollution Control Board vs MV Naidu case 1999-2000. Landmark Indian Supreme Court judgment that reinforced the precautionary principle, established the right to clean water as a part of the right to Life Article 21 and placed the burden of proof on polluters. All these cases were there for you to look at, sir.
JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI: We have looked at the cases and this is T.N. Godavarman and M.C. Mehta are the continuing mandamus proceedings. They are not as if we have closed the matters. The matters—
ARNAB GOSWAMI: What do you mean? It’s not—is it? I’m asking. You’re saying the matter is not closed?
JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI: Matter is not closed. We have directed the MSFP to get the report. The MSFP report will come to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court will find out wherein the mining activities are to be permitted and where they are to be prohibited. It is not as if that the matter is closed.
The Government Report Contradiction
ARNAB GOSWAMI: Other cases which were in the public domain. There is a May report by the government. It’s titled “Detail Action Plan Aravali Landscape Restoration (Aravali Green Wall).” The irony is this report was published by the Ministry of Environment and Forests. It’s not even an old report. It was published in May 2025, just eight months before the Supreme Court redefined the Aravalis.
It involved the Forest Survey of India, State Forest departments of Delhi, Gujarat, Haryana, Rajasthan, along with German cooperation for international cooperation. Now this report was in the public domain and the nation wants to know from you, Justice Gavai, as the former Chief Justice of India, would you see it the other way? That this report had very much established the threat to the Aravallis eight months before your judgment. Your new definition allows for leeway by the mining players to exploit an already depleting resource.
JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI: It is firstly not the definition provided by the Court. It is the report of the committee of the experts. The Court found that the report was liable to be accepted subject to the further requirement regarding—I am again repeating it. We are again going to—
ARNAB GOSWAMI: So you don’t completely agree with the government’s version which the government says. We are only going by what the Supreme Court says. You are saying you’re only going by what the government told.
JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI: We are going by what the report—report of the experts. FSI was also a party. We only accepted that. And in addition to acceptance, we imposed certain stringent conditions which would protect the mining activities. Unless the MSFP is finalized, no further mining will be permitted. If you go through—if you kindly go paragraph 4 and paragraph 5 of the operative order, it is more than clear.
The Government’s Mining Framework
ARNAB GOSWAMI: Sir, you have seen the affidavit out here, sir, of the government which was filed in this case. Because I have gone through it in detail. It’s 2000—you say I have not seen the reports but I have read every word of the 2,300 page additional affidavit filed by the Ministry of Environment. Sir, I am very detailed in my work, sir.
The fact of the matter is the government is trying to institutionalize mining as a core objective, not as an exception. By formally designing a framework whose purpose is to enable exploitation mining inside the Aravalis.
JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI: No, no, but then we have not accepted that. We have specifically stated that unless and until MSFP, the Management of Sustainable Development Plan is finalized, no further mining leases will be granted in Aravali hills.
The Final Question: Room For Review?
ARNAB GOSWAMI: May I ask you a question, sir? You also said, sir, if the—now that there is considerable public outrage on this matter and by informed people, not uninformed people, do you believe that if necessary this matter should be looked at again, reviewed, discussed?
The Question of Judicial Review
JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI: No, no. I have always stated that the law has to be static, law has to be developing, law has to be organic. We have, yes. On various occasions, wherever we have found that earlier orders are not correct, the courts have always corrected them. So if so.
So therefore I was not inclined to speak to you because the matter may come in review and normally the author of the judgment should not speak about the judgment. But since you insisted that this is an important issue pertaining to environment.
ARNAB GOSWAMI: Yes.
JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI: So if the subsequent benches find that something more should be learned, it is always permissible. The TNM in the center.
ARNAB GOSWAMI: So it can come up for review. I mean, you’re not. I mean, your view is given. I’m sure you’ve kept track of the public discussion on this matter, sir, over the last few days.
JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI: Yeah.
ARNAB GOSWAMI: And attention it has got. Yeah.
JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI: If the court subsequently finds that something more needs to be done, something needs to be corrected, the courts can always do it.
ARNAB GOSWAMI: And the government should be open to review as well, given all the expert opinion others. It can be put through review. Again, this decision, this definition.
JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI: I can’t. No, I can’t comment on what the subsequent. Because I am now no part of. I can’t be a part of the bench now. I am out of the system. Wherever the matter is brought before the bench, the bench will always take into consideration all the aspects.
Environment Protection vs. Mineral Potential
ARNAB GOSWAMI: Sir, is the Supreme Court adjudicating mineral potential or environmental protection?
JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI: It is. It is considering environment protection. And if you go through the various orders which preceded this order, this order is not passed in a day. It is fast forward. An exercise which was undertaken for last more than one and a half years in so far as Aravali was concerned. And I always been so the government.
ARNAB GOSWAMI: The government is. The government is portraying this as a Supreme Court mandated environment protection as an economic loss, building a grievance narrative to reopen mining on revenue. My point is, sir, you are. You are the author of this report. I have read every word of the…
JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI: Report of the judgment.
ARNAB GOSWAMI: Why does. Why, why of the judgment of the judgment? I believe there needs to be some balance.
JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI: I have always.
ARNAB GOSWAMI: Concerns of the citizens.
JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI: I have always been advocating the concept of protection of environment, protection of ecology and the sustainable development. So wherever there is a conflict, a balance has to be given. The environment has to be protected, ecology has to be protected.
I must say, other around 18 to 20 judgments in last three years for the protection of environment. And the courts are always. It is always permissible for the court if there is something more to be done, something to be corrected. The courts are always open to it.
Suo Moto Action and Redefinition Concerns
ARNAB GOSWAMI: Sir. Matters are taken suo moto by the courts.
JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI: Yes, sir. TN Godavarman is a suo moto. MC Mehta is a suo moto. MC is on a postcard of MC.
ARNAB GOSWAMI: But this was a suo moto as well.
JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI: This was not a suo moto. If you go through it, the concerns were raised by the various states that there is no consistency insofar as the definition of Aravali Hills and Ranges is concerned. And therefore, in order to bring a common uniform definition, the court was required to go into all this issue.
ARNAB GOSWAMI: It was stops anyone from redefining. Sir, tomorrow somebody will define the Ganges. Tomorrow will somebody will redefine the Himalayas. I said the other day, with respect, Supreme Court of India did not create the Himalayas or the Aravalis.
JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI: I have already told you it was necessary in order to protect the illegal mining activities which are going on. The various states were saying that it is not in 11. The area doesn’t fall in Aravali Hills and therefore the mining can go on. In order to avoid all that, we are required to pass those directions.
Public Anger and the Call for Revisiting
ARNAB GOSWAMI: So I think that I, I, okay, so here’s the point now, in this particular case, Justice Gavai, the nation is angry. 80% of the people feel there should be a revisiting of the judgment. Are you, are you, what is your view on the need to, on revisiting the judgment? Because the government is taking a very stern, inflexible position. You are the author of this.
JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI: I can’t, I can’t make any comment on that because any comment by me, because I am out of the system. I don’t want to make any statement which may have a direct indirect effect on the proceedings that may arise in the court.
And that is why I was reluctant to speak because the judges before whom the, if the review is filed are already entitled to take a relook at the matter and take appropriate action. I can’t make any comment.
The Importance of Judicial-Media Interaction
ARNAB GOSWAMI: Well, I would, I would, I, I, I, I’ll appreciate, I appreciate your coming on air tonight because I got a chance to put some straight questions. I hope, I hope you will also say, sir, today that after this interview you would not say that I have not read the judgment.
And I hope you find the merit in the questions that I have phrased before you. Because, because I believe, I believe, Justice Gavai, I, I believe, Justice Gavai, that the judiciary is important. The media is also important. It’s important for us to get the opportunity for this interaction.
JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI: But I again say that you are not read the judgment completely. If you had read the judgment the first two or three paragraphs, you would have. You would have come to know as to why this. This entire exercise was necessitated.
ARNAB GOSWAMI: Sir, I. I again tell you I have read every word of the judgment. And. And I have not just read this judgment. I have read previous judgments on the matter, and I politely disagree with your interpretation.
JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI: We are not here to convince each other.
ARNAB GOSWAMI: No, no, I’m not trying to convince you.
JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI: Yeah, I still hold that had you read the judgment, you would know as to why the requirement for having the definition was required.
ARNAB GOSWAMI: Sir, I have read the judgment entirely. Otherwise, how could I quote para chapter and verse to you right now on the judgment?
JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI: Then you. If you have read the judgment, it is the learned amicus who requested the court to take steps to define the judgment or define the definition. Aravali Hills and Aravali Ranges.
ARNAB GOSWAMI: Well, I mean, everybody is shooting off the other shoulder, sir.
JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI: So, anyway, thank you very much.
ARNAB GOSWAMI: Yeah, well, thank you very much, Justice Gavai, and thank you for coming on Republic.
Related Posts
