From Kancha Gachibowli to Aravalli to Hasdeo, in 2025 people came in large numbers to protest against the threats of mining and deforestation. While the Supreme Court’s order on retrospective environmental reviews has sparked debate on the foundations of environmental jurisprudence, the government’s nuclear mining policy has also been found to be at odds with the interests of ecologically fragile and highly vulnerable coastal areas.
Protest against the new definition of the Aravalli hills at the centre
The Supreme Court’s adoption of a new uniform definition of the Aravali Hills and Ranges has sparked massive protests in Rajasthan, Delhi and Haryana since December.
Under the new definition, “Aravali Hill” will be defined as any landform in the designated Aravali districts with an elevation of 100 meters above sea level or above its local relief and “Aravali Range” will be a set of two or more such hills within 500 meters of each other. The Bench adopted recommendations for sustainable mining and steps to be taken to prevent illegal mining in the Aravali Hills and Ranges.
Protesters fear that the new definition protects only hills above 100 meters from mining, leaving the remaining hills – a 700 km stretch from Haryana to Gujarat, with the bulk of it in Rajasthan – unprotected from the threat of mining.
Also Read: Government failed to define Aravallis despite more than a year of efforts
On December 29, the Supreme Court set aside its November 20 judgment that upheld the government expert panel’s definition of Aravalli.
Students display placards during a protest to protect the Aravalli range at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi, Son Saturday, Dec. 27, 2025. | Photo credit: PTI
Students protest to save the Kancha Gachibowli forest in Hyderabad
In March 2025, University of Hyderabad (UoH) students started protesting against the auction of 400 acres of Kancha Gachibowli forest land. The students said the land was part of the university, which the government strongly denied.
Environmentalists said the country is home to a rich variety of indigenous flora and fauna. They pointed to the lack of required permits for felling greenery and the absence of an Environmental Impact Assessment, which is mandatory for such projects.
In April, the Supreme Court halted the clearing of the forest area and ordered the Telangana Wildlife Warden to take immediate steps to protect wildlife affected by the destruction of 100 acres of Kancha Gachibowli “forest” area, telling the state government that it cannot have “high-rise buildings in the company of deer”.
BJP and Congress veterans join environmentalists to protect Himalayas
In September 2025, veteran BJP leader and former Union Human Resource Development Minister Murli Manohar Joshi and veteran Congress and Rajya Sabha member Karan Singh, along with several environmentalists and scientists, appealed to the Supreme Court to review its 2021 judgment allowing the widening of Himalayan roads, part of the Chardham project, beyond 5.5 metres.
The project, overseen by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, involves the widening of mountain roads, including those in the Bhagirathi Eco Sensitive Zone and those leading to India’s border with China.
However, environmentalists have argued that cutting the hillsides and the resulting debris is damaging the ecosystem and exacerbating the impact of landslides and torrential rains, as well as causing massive roadblocks and pile-ups on these mountain roads.
Rampant cutting of hills at Rudraprayag for the Char Dham project, a proposed two-lane National Highway with a minimum width of 10 meters. The Char Dham project consists of widening and repairing 889 kilometers of national highways leading to the revered shrines of Kedarnath, Badrinath, Gangotri and Yamunotri in Uttarakhand. | Photo credit: KRISHNAN VV
The Supreme Court revokes the verdict on retrospective environmental reviews
The Supreme Court, in a majority judgment dated 18 November 2025, recalled its 16 May judgment which had declared that the Centre’s granting of ex post facto or retrospective environmental clearances to construction projects and structures was a “gross illegality” and a “curse”.
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan recorded a sharp dissent in his 97-page opinion. He called the review judgment “an innocent expression of opinion” that overlooked “principles of environmental jurisprudence”.
The May ruling ruled that granting retroactive permits in any form to legalize illegal constructions was clearly illegal.
In an editorial, The Hind states that post-facto reviews can only impose sanctions, prescribe mitigation or order closure or demolition.
Also Read: Wildlife First writes to Karnataka government to reject Kudremukh Iron Ore Company Limited’s proposal for ex-post de facto forest clearing
Exemption of nuclear mining from public consultation
The Impact Assessment Division of the Union Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change announced in September 2025 through an office memorandum that no public consultation is required for mining projects of atomic minerals notified under Part B and critical and strategic minerals notified under Part D of the first Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act.
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin urged Prime Minister Narendra Modi to withdraw the office memorandum and expressed concern over the rare earth elements that are part of the ecologically fragile and highly vulnerable beach sand systems in coastal Tamil Nadu.
In a written reply in the Lok Sabha, Union Environment Minister Kirti Vardhan Singh informed the state government in December 2025 that the exemption was granted under the pre-existing provision of the EIA notification, clause 7(III)(i)(f), which allows projects related to national defence, security or other strategic considerations to be exempted from public consultation.
Forest clearance for a mining project in Hasdeo
In August 2025, the Chhattisgarh government approved the clearance of forest for a mining project in the ecologically sensitive Hasdeo Aranya. The project potentially paves the way for the felling of 4.5 million trees, drawing criticism from opposition parties and environmentalists.
The opposition demanding its repeal accused the ruling BJP of sacrificing the interests of the people of the state as well as environmental interests “for the benefit of their capitalist friends”.
Local residents submitted up to 1,623 individual letters of objection during the public hearing on the environmental clearance.
In 2022, the Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly unanimously passed a private member’s resolution urging the Center to de-allot all coal mining blocks in the environmentally sensitive Hasdeo Aranya area.
The protest against mining and subsequent deforestation in the Hasdeo forest dates back to 2011, when the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change granted permission to mine the coal block. According to the People’s Union for Civil Liberties, the Indian government has identified 23 coal blocks in the forest area.
The protest site at the entrance of Hariharpur village where the Hasdeo Arand Bachao Sangharsh Samiti has been gathering every day since March 2, 2022. Muneshwar Singh Porte, Samiti member and resident of Fattepur village, in white shirt. | Photo credit: AMFaruqui
Abolition and ‘disappearance’ of villagers’ forest rights in Chhattisgarh
When we talk about forest conservation, the role of forest dwellers and adivasi communities is often ignored.
In October 2025, the Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a petition challenging the cancellation of community forest rights granted to Ghatbarra villagers in the Hasdeo Aranya forest, where an entity owned by Adani Enterprises operates the Parsa East and Kete Basin coal mines.
In 2016, the District Level Committee (DLC) in Surguja district revoked the rights to forest communities granted in 2013, saying it was wrongly granted as the piece of land fell under mining areas for which forest diversion had already been approved in 2012.
The Forest Rights Act of 2006 recognizes and grants forest use rights to the Scheduled Tribe and other forest-dwelling communities.
In August, The Hindu reported that thousands of forest rights titles distributed in at least three districts in Chhattisgarh appeared to have disappeared from the records of the state’s tribal welfare office at various points during the previous 17 months. Under the FRA, once awarded, titles are not transferable or alienable, but can only be inherited.
Protest against Siang Upper Multi-Purpose Project (SUMP) in Arunachal Pradesh
Villagers from three districts of central Arunachal Pradesh in May 2025 launched an indefinite battle against the 11,000 megawatt Siang Upper Multipurpose Project. The villagers stopped the preliminary feasibility report and survey work for the hydroelectric project. The protesting women said the project would deprive them of their ancestral land and livelihood. The villagers said they have been opposing the dams since the early 1980s under the banner of the Siang Aboriginal Farmers Forum.
Protest against coal mining turns violent in Chhattisgarh’s Surguja
Violence erupted when villagers protested mining in Chhattisgarh’s Surguja in December 2025. The protesters, residents of Parsodi Kala village, were against the Amera coal expansion project of South Eastern Coalfields Limited, a subsidiary of Coal India Limited. The protesters were said to be occupying the land.
Land for agriculture was their only source of livelihood and was being taken away from them, which they were against, some protesters said. Protester Leelavati said she will not give up her country. “We love our country and don’t want to give it away. SECL will get the coal, but what will happen to us?”
Fear of “irreversible” impact on Great Nicobar Island project
In October 2025, over 70 scientists, former bureaucrats, activists, lawyers and environmentalists wrote an open letter in response to Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav’s defense of the proposed ₹92,000 crore mega-infrastructure project on Great Nicobar Island, urging the minister to “set aside irrevocable political considerations” and focus on the project.
The Great Nicobar Project includes the construction of a transshipment terminal, an international airport, a township and a power plant on more than 160 square km of land.
Also Read: Great Nicobar Island project: map ready to mark tribal reserve
The signatories claimed that the Environmental Assessment Committee ignored anthropological and ecological objections.
The Hindu reported that the Tribal Council of Little Nicobar and Great Nicobar said in a complaint to the Tribal Affairs Minister in August 2025 that forest clearance was granted for the project through a false representation to the Center by the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Administration claiming that the rights of tribal people under the Forest Rights Act, 2006 had been “identified and settled”.
