In the last week of December 2025, Instagram was flooded with strikingly similar posts carrying the hashtag #AravalliIsSafe. Using near-identical scripts, influencers argued that a controversial Supreme Court order on the Aravalli Hills was being misrepresented, environmental concerns were exaggerated, and critics were spreading misinformation.
The court’s order, these videos claimed, would protect the Aravallis, curb illegal mining, and bring long-awaited regular clarity.
The confidence of these videos stood out. So did their timing. They appeared in the middle of an intense legal and public debate over how India’s oldest mountain range should be defined and protected – just days before the Supreme Court itself put the order on hold.
An investigation by Decode found that several of these creators were managed by the same influencer marketing agency and were working from a shared briefing document. Many of the videos also misrepresented key aspects of the court’s ruling.
What the Supreme Court actually ordered– and then stayed
On November 20, 2025, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court accepted a new definition of the Aravalli Hills proposed by a committee under the Ministry of Environment. The framework classified only those landforms that rise at least 100 metres above their surrounding terrain as part of the Aravallis. Groups of such hills located within 500 metres of one another would together constitute an Aravalli range.
The reaction was swift. Environmentalists, lawyers and local groups warned that the definition could exclude large swathes of the Aravallis from legal protection, potentially opening them up to mining and development. Online, the order was described as a “death warrant” for the range.
On December 29, the Supreme Court stayed its own November order. A bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant said the judgment would be kept in abeyance and referred to a high-powered expert committee for a deeper scientific review. The court noted, prima facie, that the earlier order and committee report lacked key clarifications and could create regulatory gaps harmful to ecological protection.
The stay means the 100-metre definition is not currently in force. The court also directed that no fresh mining permissions be granted under the stayed framework until the next hearing, scheduled for January 21, 2026.
This judicial uncertainty, however, was largely absent from the Instagram reels, many of which continued to present the order as settled law that had already “saved” the Aravallis.
A familiar script across multiple creators
Decode identified at least 11 creators who uploaded videos defending the Supreme Court order. Most of these reels were posted around the same time in late December and shared striking similarities in language, visuals and arguments.
Creators presented these videos as efforts to “set the record straight”. They claimed that the 100 metre threshold was being measured from underground rather than from the surface, that the Aravallis’ average height of 600 to 700 metres meant the range remained well protected, and that areas falling below the cut-off were of little environmental importance.
The reels also asserted that only about 0.19% of land could ever become eligible for mining, and that too after multiple clearances. The order was framed as a long-overdue fix to regulatory confusion across Delhi, Rajasthan, Haryana and Gujarat, and as a decisive step to curb illegal mining. Those questioning the judgment were dismissed as spreading “half truths”, often portrayed as serving the interests of mining networks.
The accounts pushing this narrative included high-following creators such as Prafful Garg, Tarun Kedia, Ankit Sharda, Taresh Singhania and Lakshya Yadav, each with over 5,00,000 followers. Others with smaller but still significant reach included Manav Narang, Deepak Mamgai, Alankar Gupta, Garvit Goyal, Archit Vats and Utsav Agarwal.
Beyond the shared narratives, Decode found a deeper connection: At least six of these creators were managed by the same influencer marketing agency, DigiWhistle.
Inside the influencer campaign
DigiWhistle is a Noida-based influencer marketing and talent management agency founded in 2021. It describes itself as a data-driven campaign manager and lists major brands such as CRED, ICICI Bank and Groww among its clients.
Decode accessed a briefing document shared by the agency with creators, titled “Aravalli Judgement – Facts & Clarity Initiative”. The document frames the exercise as a public awareness effort aimed at reducing “fear and confusion” around the Supreme Court’s order. It instructs creators to explain the judgment in simple language, counter what it calls misleading information, and shift focus towards illegal mining as the primary environmental threat.
The brief lists clear dos and don’ts. Creators were asked to explain what the judgment allows and prohibits, encourage people to understand the issue before reacting, and use the hashtag #AravalliIsSafe. At the same time, they were told not to defend the government, attack any individual or group, or frame their content as political protest.
The briefing document outlining dos and don’ts for #AravalliIsSafe videos.
Illegal mining was positioned as the campaign’s central concern. The brief argued that unclear boundaries and inconsistent definitions had enabled environmental damage for years, and framed the court’s order as a step towards scientific mapping and regulatory clarity.
Decode could not independently ascertain who commissioned the agency to work on the campaign. However, this reporter has seen a confirmation email sent from the agency to one influencer detailing content deliverables for a reel aligned with this narrative. The influencer shared the communication on condition of anonymity.
DigiWhistle did not respond to Decode’s email query. The story will be updated if and when it does.
Do the claims hold up?
Much of the influencer content presents itself as myth-busting, relying on technical-sounding assurances to establish credibility. To examine these claims, Decode spoke to Advocate Hitendra Gandhi, who had earlier written to Chief Justice Surya Kant urging the court to reconsider or clarify the definitional framework adopted in the November 20 order.
On the claim that the 100-metre threshold is measured underground, Gandhi was unequivocal. “That is simply not what the Supreme Court adopted,” he said. According to him, the order relies on surface elevation and contour mapping to identify hills. It does not measure the depth of geological formations below the ground.
He also cautioned against the repeated emphasis on the Aravallis’ average height. The court, he explained, was not looking at how tall the mountains are above sea level, but at how much a hill rises compared to the land around it. “Even if a range has very tall peaks, there can be long stretches where the rise is much lower,” he said, adding that these areas can still be ecologically crucial.
On the claim that only 0.19 per cent of the landscape would be eligible for mining, Gandhi said the figure cannot be independently verified without public access to the maps, data and calculation methods used. Without that information, he said, the number remains unverifiable even if officially cited.
Finally, on assertions that the order would curb illegal mining, Gandhi offered a cautionary note. “A definition does not, by itself, stop illegal mining,” he said. Effective enforcement, he added, depends on transparent mapping, monitoring, prosecutions and audits. The judgment may create a legal framework, but its real impact will be determined by how it is enforced on the ground.
Behind the pitches that didn’t land
As the online debate around the Aravalli judgment intensified, a parallel set of videos began circulating – this time from creators claiming they had refused paid collaborations to promote the pro-order narrative.
Instagram creator Anmol ‘Jazbati’ Saxena said he was approached by an agency that asked him to delete an earlier reel critical of the 100-metre criterion and replace it with content aligned with a prescribed narrative. Saxena shared screenshots of the email but did not name the agency. He said the offer ran into six figures and alleged that after refusing the offer, he received threatening calls pressuring him to take down the video expose.
Content creator Madeep Sehrawat, known as @thecalmguyyy, also alleged that he was contacted to create paid content in support of the court’s order. He shared screenshots of the communication and criticised influencers who agreed to participate in such campaigns, arguing that they were misleading their audiences on a complex environmental issue.
Another creator, Molik Jain, also posted a video claiming he was offered Rs 50,000 to Rs 60,000 to participate in what the agency described as a paid “digital awareness campaign” aimed at shifting public perception around the Aravalli debate. Jain said he declined the offer and later received calls and messages warning him to remove his video.
Decode could not independently verify the claims made by these creators or identify the agencies behind all the approaches as the creators were hesitant to speak on record about the offers.
As the Supreme Court re-examines its own order and seeks wider expert input, the Instagram campaign around the Aravallis highlights how complex legal and environmental questions are increasingly being reframed through coordinated social media narratives.
The same judgement that influencers confidently described as settled, scientific and protective is now under judicial reconsideration. Between the courtrooms and the reels, the future of the Aravallis remains very much unresolved.