In August 2024, the Jharkhand government became the first state to enforce the SC Constitution bench order by passing a tax 

Updated on: Aug 17, 2026, 15:29:54 IST

Prefer HTon Google

Share via
Copy link

The recently concluded monsoon session of Parliament passed the Mines and Minerals Development (Amendment) Bill, which takes away the powers of states to impose levies on major minerals.

The bill, which restricts states from imposing additional, retrospective and unpredictable taxes was passed in both houses of Parliament without any substantive discussion.

The law was primarily aimed to negate the impact of the July 25, 2024, Supreme Court judgement that allowed states to impose mineral tax and recover arrears retrospectively since April 1, 2005. It is estimated that the SC ruling would have allowed the states to recover arrears worth ₹1.5 to ₹2 lakh crore from major mining companies retrospectively.

In August 2024, the Jharkhand government became the first state to enforce the SC Constitution bench order by passing a tax, giving itself the right to impose different kinds of levies on mined minerals in the state.

The Jharkhand government projected that it would generate ₹13,215 crore from the additional levies on minerals and it would amount to 84.9% of the non-tax revenue of the state in its budget for 2026-27,

Around ₹9,000 crore of this revenue was designated to fund Jharkhand’s flagship Mukhyamantri Maiyan Samman Yojana (MMSY), under which the state government provides ₹2,500 to around 5.1 million women every month.

The Impact

Jharkhand chief minister, Hemant Soren, has written Prime Minister Narendra Modi, highlighting the financial crunch the amendment would create, terming it against the interests of the tribal-dominated and backward Jharkhand.

Former Kerala chief minister, Pinayari Vijayan, said that the amendment will “weaken” public sector undertakings and “benefit” the private sector.

Soren’s party, the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) and its alliance partner, the Congress, decided to launch a state-wide protest claiming the amendment was brought to curtail Jharkhand’s right to development.

“Now, the right to levy a cess on its own mineral-rich land will be subject to Delhi’s terms,” the JMM said in a statement.

Union government’s stand

Mines minister G Kishen Reddy has argued that the amendment will not reduce revenue from mines for the states as they would continue to get 90% of the tax share and added that the aim was to bring “stability” to the major minerals sector.

Of the total ₹five lakh crore accrued in the financial year 2025-26, the minister said only ₹82,000 crore was Centre’s money and rest was distributed to states. This is the money, which his ministry gets and is then distributed to the states; the SC had allowed states to collect the levy themselves.

The mines ministry statement added that the amendment will not impact the powers of the states to regulate and impose tax on minor minerals — which contribute less than one percent to the revenue of the mineral rich states, confirming that the states right to impose levies on major minerals has been taken away.

States likely to approach court

The amendment also negates the July 2024 Supreme Court ruling, a rare instance of the legislative outreach to curb a judicial order.

The amendment bill’s constitutional validity is likely to be challenged in the Supreme Court and some of the non-Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-ruled states such as Jharkhand and Kerala are seeking legal opinion for the same.

The logic is this: why can’t states impose levies on minerals extracted from the land owned by state governments.

The Centre has invoked Entry 54 of the Union List in Constitution, which allows Parliament powers to regulate major minerals, to justify the bill. The SC said that the states can impose levy for mining under Entry 49 and 50 of the States List, terming royalty on mining not a tax. The States would also seek remedy through Entry 15 of the States List, which covers regulation of land, including the mineral bearing areas.

Larger Questions

More than legalities, the passage of the MMDR Amendment Bill raises other fundamental federal governance issues. The issue is the lack of consultation with the states on a law that impacts their revenue – unlike when the Goods and Services Tax (GST) replaced the Value Added Tax (VAT).

The Union government could have addressed several concerns of the state through the consultation process before introducing the bill in the house. But — as has been seen in recent years – consulting the states on policy matters has become rare. Through several centrally-sponsored schemes, the Union government has tried to impose its decision on the states, leading to states (read non-BJP ruled) approaching the Supreme Court.

An alternate route to consult states through the Parliament standing committees has also not taken by the Union government despite demand by the opposition political parties. Since 2014, when the National Democratic Alliance came to power, less than 20% of the bills have witnessed standing committee scrutiny as compared to 80% during the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) rule between 2004 and 2014.

Get Current Updates on India News, Elections 2024, Lok sabha election 2024 voting live , Karnataka election 2024 live in Bengaluru , Election 2024 Date along with Latest News and Top Headlines from India and around the world.

See Less