The panel had asked for 6-month extension to submit report.

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday refused to give the expert panel examining the definition and protection of the Aravalli Hills another six months to submit its final report, telling it to “work day and night” and complete the exercise by November 30.A bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana rejected the high-powered committee’s request to extend the deadline till February 28, 2027. The court also warned that it would reconstitute the panel if it failed to submit the report within the next two months, news agency PTI reported.“Let the panel work day and night to submit a report on the Aravalli issue. If they are unable to do that in two months, we will reconstitute the whole panel,” the CJI observed.The court also directed the committee to submit issue-specific interim reports, allowing it to address urgent aspects of the contentious Aravalli definition without waiting for its comprehensive final report.The CJI appeared particularly unimpressed with the timing of the extension request, observing that the committee had sought more time “with the first stroke of the pen” and appeared to be waiting for his retirement.The court further directed the panel to hear all stakeholders, including tribal communities in Rajasthan and Gujarat, before finalising its recommendations. The matter will next be heard on December 2.The committee had sought six additional months, saying it needed more time to undertake a “comprehensive and defensible” assessment of the Aravalli range. Its deadline for submitting the final report was August 31.

In its compliance report filed on August 31, the panel said its assessment required the integration of spatial, ecological, geological, hydrological and socio-economic evidence, besides inputs from stakeholders.It said additional time was needed for geospatial assessment, sensitivity analysis, expert examination, field verification and stakeholder validation.The committee also argued that the Aravalli issue could not be resolved through a “single terrain-based criterion or a single source of evidence”.The urgency around the exercise stems from a controversy over how the Aravallis should be defined for regulatory purposes, particularly mining.