E-Paper
Party may move SC if Odisha assembly fails to oppose MMDR amendments: BJD
BJD leader Pratap Jena stated the party may approach the Supreme Court if the Odisha assembly fails to oppose the BJP's recent MMDR Act amendments.
Prefer HTon Google
Former minister and senior Biju Janata Dal (BJD) leader Pratap Jena on Friday said that if efforts to persuade the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) against its recent amendments to the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act fail in the assembly, his party may approach the apex court.
Speaking to HT, Jena said his party is seeking an immediate discussion in the Odisha assembly and a resolution to be passed against the MMDR amendment.
“If the Odisha assembly fails to pass a resolution in this regard, then we will go to the Supreme Court. This is not just the BJP’s interest or the BJD’s interest. It is Odisha’s interest. We will fight for the interest of the state,” Jena said.
“We will fight inside the assembly. We will fight in Parliament with whatever strength we have. We will build pressure. If necessary, we will also speak to other mineral-rich states like Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh. If nothing happens, then we will do whatever is necessary even if that means going to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s 2024 judgment was delivered by a nine-judge Constitution Bench which held that states have the right to levy taxes on mineral rights. If we approach the Supreme Court, we are hopeful (of a positive verdict),” he said.
The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2026 passed in Parliament on August 13 provides for restrictions on states’ powers to tax mineral rights and mineral bearing lands.
Also Read:MMDR Amendment Bill 2026: Unlocking mineral potential, empowering states
The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill notes that uneven imposition of taxes and other levies by states in the absence of reasonable limitations has led to several issues.
The Act empowers the Central government to control the regulation of mines and development of minerals. The Bill adds that the Central government will also be empowered to regulate mineral bearing lands.
Mineral bearing land is defined as any land having mineral contents in accordance with parameters prescribed by the Central government. Though land is a state subject under Entry 18 of the State List and gives state legislatures the power to tax land (Entry 49 of the State List), the amended Act adds that mineral-bearing lands will also be under the Central government’s control.
BJD chief and former CM Naveen Patnaik released a series of video messages describing the MMDR amendment as “anti-Odisha” and accused the Centre of taking away the state’s rights over its mineral resources. The BJD demanded an all-party meeting and a special session of the Odisha assembly to oppose the legislation.
Jena’s party colleague and senior BJD leader Debiprasad Mishra also said that his party is examining the judicial option. “But we have to adopt different methods. Political agitation is one way and legal action is another. Even though it has become an Act, it can still be challenged because it negates the very spirit of the Supreme Court’s earlier pronouncement,” he said.
Odisha is the largest mineral producing state in India, accounting for 43.7% of the country’s total value of mineral production (including metallic and non-metallic minerals but excluding fuel oil and atomic minerals) in 2024-25.
Mining contributes an estimated 21% of Odisha’s total revenue pool. Though Jharkhand started collecting rent after the Supreme Court verdict in 2024, Odisha’s similar law named the Orissa Rural Infrastructure and Socio-Economic Development Act, 2004 was struck down by the Orissa high court in 2005, and the state’s appeal sat before the Supreme Court since 2006, unresolved.
Industry and state estimates put its annual loss at roughly ₹12,000 crore, with over ₹1 lakh crore in outstanding dues.
Senior advocate of the Orissa High Court, Laxmikant Pangari said the Supreme Court in 2024 ruled that mineral bearing land falls within the description of lands under Entry 49, and states may tax such land using the quantity of minerals produced or the royalty payable.
“The SC held that Parliament may, through a law relating to mineral development, impose limitations on states’ power to tax mineral rights under Entry 50. However, this power does not extend to the states’ power to tax land under Entry 49. Entry 54 of the Union List enables Parliament to regulate mines and mineral development. However, the Supreme Court clarified that Entry 54 is a general regulatory power, and Parliament’s power to impose restrictions under a mineral development law operates only on the taxation of mineral rights, not on the taxation of land. Parliament may not have the legislative competence to regulate mineral bearing land and the Act raises serious questions on federal character of our country,” he said.
