New Delhi, Dec. 30 -- The Supreme Court on Monday stayed its November 20 judgment narrowing the definition of Aravalli hills to landforms rising at least 100 metres above the surrounding terrain, holding that there was a "dire need to further probe and clarify" the issue to prevent regulatory gaps that could undermine the ecological integrity of one of India's most fragile and significant mountain systems. Hearing the matter suo motu, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and justices JK Maheshwari and AG Masih ordered that the earlier judgment and the recommendations of a court-appointed committee be kept "in abeyance" until a comprehensive re-examination is carried out with the assistance of a high-powered panel of independent domain experts. The interim stay is likely to also put on hold the mapping and delineation exercise initiated earlier this month by the Union environment ministry and state governments to identify Aravalli areas strictly on the basis of the now-stayed 100-metre elevation criterion - an exercise that was meant to form the foundation for future mining decisions in the region. Describing the Aravallis as the "green lungs of north-western India", the court underlined that the two-billion-year-old range serves as an indispensable ecological and socio-economic backbone of the region, acting as a natural barrier separating the Thar desert from the fertile northern plains while sustaining diverse ecosystems and livelihoods. Environmentalists - who warned that the definition exposed the hills to commercial exploitation and mining - and the Centre - which dismissed those claims welcomed the order. Union environment minister Bhupender Yadav reiterated that his ministry is committed to the "protection and restoration of the Aravalli range." "As things stand, a complete ban on mining stays with regards to new mining leases or renewal of old mining leases," he said on X. The apex court bench noted that despite its historical and environmental significance, the Aravallis have been subjected to decades of unchecked urbanisation, deforestation and intensive resource extraction, placing immense strain on what it described as an "inherently fragile ecosystem". It pointed out that the November 20 judgment has triggered a spate of interlocutory applications, miscellaneous petitions and public criticism, particularly from environmentalists, raising concerns about ambiguity, misinterpretation and improper implementation of the new definition. While stating that there was no scientific material on record to justify outright acceptance of these criticisms, the court said it appeared prima facie that both the committee's report and the November judgment had failed to expressly clarify several "critical issues". "There is a dire need to further probe and clarify to prevent any regulatory gaps that might undermine the ecological integrity of the Aravalli region," held the bench, pointing to widespread apprehension that the elevation-based definition could unintentionally shrink protected areas and open up ecologically contiguous terrain to mining and development. Among the unresolved questions flagged by the court were whether restricting the Aravallis to a 500-metre proximity between qualifying hills creates a structural paradox by narrowing the conservation footprint; whether this approach inversely expands so-called "non-Aravalli" areas where unregulated mining could continue; and how ecological continuity would be preserved where gaps between qualifying hills exceed the prescribed distance. The bench also took note of criticism that only 1,048 out of 12,081 hills in Rajasthan meet the 100-metre threshold - a claim which, if scientifically accurate, could strip vast portions of the range of environmental protection. The court said this raised the possibility of a serious regulatory lacuna, warranting an exhaustive scientific and geological assessment of the entire range. In view of these concerns, the court said it was inclined to constitute a high-powered expert committee to conduct a holistic and multi-temporal assessment of the committee's report, including identifying which areas fall within and outside the proposed definition, evaluating the ecological impact of regulated mining, and examining whether exclusion of certain areas risks long-term degradation of the range. During Monday's hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union government, welcomed the suo motu proceedings and said there were "several misconceptions" surrounding the November judgment. He pointed out that the earlier ruling had accepted the report of a court-appointed expert committee, and that it had envisaged a detailed mining plan to be prepared by experts, which would become operational only after Supreme Court approval....