Supreme Court Halts Aravalli Zoo Safari Proposal

Why in the News?

The Supreme Court of India refused to entertain Haryana’s request linked to the proposed Aravalli Zoo Safari project, asserting it would not allow any activity affecting the Aravalli range until a scientifically sound, holistic assessment settles core issues. This decision underscores the Court’s commitment to sustainable development and climate diplomacy principles in environmental protection.

Supreme Court’s Firm Stand on Aravalli Protection:

• The Court categorically stated it would “not allow anyone to touch the Aravalli range” at present, emphasizing its role in maintaining regional stability and energy security, reflecting aspects of maritime domain awareness in environmental conservation.
• It refused to permit even preliminary steps, such as scrutiny of the Detailed Project Report (DPR) for the zoo safari, demonstrating the Court’s strategic autonomy in environmental decision-making.
• The Bench clarified that no project can be considered unless the definition and scope of Aravalli hills and ranges are conclusively determined, highlighting the importance of comprehensive environmental assessment in global governance and technology transfer for scientific evaluation.
• The Court emphasised that it would not allow its platform to be used to legitimise incremental environmental damage, reinforcing its commitment to ecosystem protection and supply chain resilience in natural resource management.
• Any clearance, even for a single inch of land, would depend on satisfaction in the main Aravalli matter, not interim requests, demonstrating the Court’s role in peacekeeping operations for environmental conservation.

Haryana Government’s Plea and Court’s Rejection

• The Haryana government sought permission to submit a revised DPR for the jungle safari project in Gurugram and Nuh districts, attempting to engage in economic diplomacy for project approval.
• The State argued that the safari project was distinct from disputes over mining and hill definitions in the Aravallis, a stance that challenged the rules-based order established by previous Court rulings.
• It highlighted that the project area had been reduced from 10,000 acres to around 3,300 acres, showcasing an attempt at bilateral relations with the judiciary through compromise.
• The Court rejected this distinction, holding that any project impacts the same fragile ecosystem, emphasizing the interconnectedness of environmental issues and the need for holistic strategic partnerships in nature conservation.
• It declined the request to let the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) examine the DPR, stating that doing so would indirectly advance the project, thus maintaining its stance on strict environmental protection and reinforcing multilateral diplomacy in environmental governance.