By Dr. Gyan Pathak
How many definitions were changed under various legislations by the Union Government of India under Prime Minister Narendra Modi since 2014 and for whose benefit? Aravalli Hills case has once again prompted us to think, because definitions were changed to profit the mining lobbies at the cost of ecology and environment, which attracted nationwide protest, and a suo motu case initiated over the concerns surrounding revised definition of Aravalli Hills. We have had many controversies around changes of definition in many legislations of the country that went against the common people, and the present Aravalli Hills case only reminds us that time has come to call government’s bluff.
Today, on December 29, 2025, the bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice JK Maheshwari, and Justice AG Masih, while hearing the suo motu case has kept in abeyance an earlier direction of the Supreme Court concerning the change in definition of Aravalli Hills and said further clarification was required before the expert committee report and the court’s directions could be implemented. The court ordered to set up a fresh expert committee, issues notice to the Union Government, and posted the case on January 21, 2026.
The suo motu case was initiated following the nationwide protests and concerns that the change in definition of Aravalli Hills could open doors to unregulated mining and environmental and ecological damage.“We deem it necessary that Committee recommendation and directions of this court be kept in abeyance. Stay to remain in effect till constitution of the Committee,” the Bench said.
While flagging several concerns, the Court said that the earlier expert committee report and the Court’s observations were being misconstrued. It emphasized that prior to implementation, a fair, impartial and independent expert opinion must be considered to provide definitive guidance. There is the need to examine whether the definition of the Aravalli Hills and Ranges had created a structural paradox, and whether it had inversely broadened the scope of non-Aravalli areas, thereby facilitating the continuation of unregulated mining.
Other specific concerns that required examination, according the observations of the Bench were – whether regulated mining would be permitted within the 500-metre gap between hills, and whether the concern that only 1,048 hills out of 12,081 meet the 100-metre elevation threshold was correct, or whether a geological enquiry was necessary.
The issue of definition of the Aravalli Hills and Aravalli Ranges across Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan, and Gujarat arose because of different definitions that allowed legal mining at the cost of ecology and environment. It was only in November 2025, the Supreme Court had accepted the operational definition recommended by a committee of the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change.
The expert committee had defined Aravalli Hills in the designated districts with a minimum elevation of 100 metres from the local relief, including supporting slopes and connected landforms. As per the definition of Aravalli Range, it formed when two or more such hills are located within 500 metres of each other. Government’s definitions were objected by experts even at that time and it was alleged that government had changed the definition to benefit mining lobbies.
This is not an isolated case of change of definitions. Modi government has been changing definitions under various laws ever since it came to power, and changed many legislations that impacts the fate of common people of India, and benefited various political and economic groups and lobbies.
During the COVID-19 crisis and after, the definition of Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises were changed several times to give benefit to some bigger enterprises by bringing them under the MSMEs. The real MSMEs before 2020 were at the receiving end and financial and other benefits were given to the bigger enterprises. At that time, the enterprises having investment below Rs10 crores in manufacturing, and below 5 crore in service were considered MSMEs. Now, starting April 1, 2025, upper limit has been increased to a turnover up to Rs500 crore with investment below R125 crore. Who got benefit of the change in these definitions is not now a secret.
Another most controversial change in definition is related to who is employed and who is unemployed. Government have brought household unpaid help as employed, and also those who got at least 1 hour of paid work in a week. Those who, out of frustration, stopped searching for employment, are also not counted as unemployed. The reality is there are few jobs available in the market.
The most significant and debated definitional changes also included in the New criminal law codes, Jan Vishwas Act amendments, IT/online content definitions, dozens of repealing and amending acts, and regulatory redefinitions in tax, labour, and environmental laws.
Criminal Laws of India – Indian Penal Code (IPC), Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), and India Evidence Act, were replaced with the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhit (BNSS), and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) respectively, which came into force from July 1, 2024. These new laws altered definitions of offences such as sedition, terrorism, bail norms, etc., sparking controversy among legal experts and opposition parties. They replaced even the foundational legal terminology and shifted how crimes are defined and prosecuted.
Under Jan Vishwas (Amendment) Act, 2023, the Union government amended definitions in dozens of existing laws in about 42 different Acts to decriminalise minor offences and change punitive definitions, especially in corporate, environment, and consumer laws. It replaced criminal penalties with civil or monetary penalties for many provisions.
Many definitions were also changed in IT and Media laws. Amendments to the Information Technology Act, 2000 and allied rules broadened definitions of what constitutes online “misinformation” or “unlawful content,” drawing legal and free-speech criticism. It is just another instance of controversial definitional shifts affecting legal interpretations and enforcement.
Many Definitions were also changed under Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) 2019, Foreigners (Amendment) Orders (2015 and 2016), Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) Amendments, 2019, and Jammu and Kashmir reorganisation and related legislations.
Definitions also got changed even under multiple repealing and amending acts in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2019 and so on, until 2025. The latest repeal was the MGNREGA 2025 which is replaced by VB – G RAM G Bill, which done away with the right of the rural folk to get work on demand.
Many terms related to GST and Tax including tax slabs and exemptions, labour and environmental laws thresholds, other areas like education, health, welfare, citizenship etc, which are not fully enumerated here, has been changed. If minor corrections and repeals taken into consideration, including under the recently notified four labour codes, the instances of change of definition would run to thousands. India have witnessed several waves of changes in definitions since 2014, that generated public debate, judicial scrutiny, or political controversies.
Hence there is a case of detailed study of the impact of change in definitions on the life of common people, and a time has come to call the government’s bluff on its policy of changing names and definitions. (IPA Service)
Rupee Decline May Not Be Bad For Economy Now 