The Odisha units of the INDIA bloc have announced a statewide campaign and an Assembly ‘gherao’ on September 29, demanding withdrawal of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2026.
The announcement followed a mass convention in Bhubaneswar on September 8, where Congress, CPI, CPI(M), CPI(ML) Liberation, Forward Bloc, NCP, Samajwadi Party and RJD leaders alleged that the new law weakens Odisha’s fiscal and constitutional rights over its mineral resources, while affecting tribal land, forests and livelihoods.
The Centre, however, maintains that the law creates a predictable mining regime and does not reduce states’ overall mineral revenue. The latest development comes amid a parallel BJD campaign: on September 9, the party protested in Bhubaneswar and submitted a memorandum through Governor Hari Babu Kambhampati seeking President Droupadi Murmu’s intervention.
Why Odisha Is Protesting
The INDIA bloc’s September 8 convention in Bhubaneswar marked a fresh escalation of its campaign. Opposition leaders called the amended law “anti-Odisha”, “anti-people” and “unconstitutional”, arguing that it restricts states from imposing certain taxes, cess and other levies on mineral rights and mineral-bearing land.
Congress state president Bhakta Charan Das said the amendment could hurt Odisha’s financial interests and the rights of people living in mining-affected areas. The alliance has planned further mobilisation in mineral-rich districts, with the September 29 Assembly gherao intended as the culmination of the campaign.
At the heart of the dispute is Section 9D of the amended MMDR Act. It says states cannot impose specified levies on mineral rights or mineral-bearing land except under conditions or restrictions prescribed by the Centre. It also states that certain such levies that remained unpaid or unrecovered before the amendment came into force would be treated as invalid.
The Union government argues that the change is needed to prevent unpredictable and overlapping taxation that can increase mining costs and discourage investment. The Centre says states continue to receive around 90% of mining-sector revenue, amounting to about ₹1.145 lakh crore in 2025-26.
The Revenue Fight Behind It
The financial implications have become one of the most contentious parts of the debate. BJD leaders have claimed that Odisha could lose around ₹1 lakh crore in mining-related arrears, along with future revenue, if previously unrecovered state levies are rendered invalid. BJD Rajya Sabha MP Santrupt Misra cited an affidavit by Odisha’s Advocate General and an Odisha Review article while making the claim.
The BJD reiterated the allegation on September 9, when its leaders met Governor Hari Babu Kambhampati and sought the President’s intervention, arguing that the amendment threatens the state’s fiscal autonomy and constitutional rights. These figures remain political claims rather than an independently established estimate of Odisha’s eventual loss.
The Centre disputes the suggestion that Odisha or other mineral-rich states will suffer such a revenue shock. According to the government, states’ share of mineral revenue has increased significantly over the past decade, with states receiving nearly 90% of mining-sector revenue.
The government says the amendment is instead aimed at creating a uniform and predictable fiscal framework, reducing the burden of multiple levies and supporting investment, production and employment. State-owned steel producer SAIL has also welcomed the amendment, saying greater fiscal certainty could improve the viability of captive mining and strengthen domestic iron ore supply.
The dispute also has a constitutional dimension. In July 2024, the Supreme Court held by an eight-judge majority that states have the power to tax mineral rights and mineral-bearing land, while clarifying that royalty is not itself a tax.
The 2026 amendment has therefore raised questions about how far Parliament can restrict state taxation powers. PRS Legislative Research has flagged the possibility that Parliament’s power to limit taxation of mineral rights may not automatically extend to taxation of land, potentially making the issue subject to constitutional scrutiny.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
Odisha’s mineral wealth is ultimately a public resource, and any debate over who controls its revenue must go beyond political confrontation. The concerns raised by opposition parties about state finances, tribal communities and local livelihoods deserve a transparent examination, just as the Centre’s argument for a predictable mining regime and greater investment deserves to be heard. The BJD’s intervention and the INDIA bloc’s planned protest show that the issue is now wider than one party or one law.
Also read: Who Was IAS Rakesh Mehta? Ex-Former Delhi Chief Secretary Dies By Suicide at 74
