The Supreme Court's new definition of Aravalli Hills, recognizing only landforms rising at least 100 meters, faces criticism for potentially removing legal protection from over 90% of existing hills. Critics argue this elevation-based definition overlooks lower ridges and hillocks crucial for ecological services like preventing desertification and shaping microclimates. The debate highlights a policy question on whether legal definitions should prioritize ecological function over rigid geometric thresholds to effectively protect landscapes.