The political dispute over India's amended mining law has intensified in Odisha, with Biju Janata Dal (BJD) president Naveen Patnaik leading a protest in Bhubaneswar on September 28 and demanding withdrawal of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2026.
Addressing supporters outside the Odisha Assembly, Patnaik argued that the amended legislation affects the state's rights over its mineral resources and could have significant consequences for Odisha's revenue. He also called for political parties in the state to oppose the legislation.
Editorial Insight
Key Highlights
Important points readers should notice.
Issue/Event: Political protest against the MMDR Amendment Act, 2026.
Location: Bhubaneswar, Odisha.
Political Organisation: Biju Janata Dal (BJD).
Action Taken: Naveen Patnaik led a protest and demanded withdrawal of the amended legislation.
Government Position: The Union government says states' rights and the larger share of mining revenue remain protected.Impact: The dispute has intensified the debate over Centre-state powers, mineral taxation and Odisha's mining revenue.
The dispute centres on changes made to the MMDR Act, 1957, which Parliament passed in August 2026. Among the changes highlighted in the political debate are provisions relating to regulation of mineral-bearing lands and the taxation of mineral rights and mineral-bearing land.
Patnaik and the BJD have argued that these provisions could reduce Odisha's fiscal and constitutional space in relation to its mineral resources. Patnaik has also sought a special discussion in the Odisha Assembly and a resolution opposing the amendment.
The Union government's position is different.
Editorial Analysis
Why This Matters
The issue goes beyond one political protest because it concerns how India's mineral resources are governed and how revenue generated from those resources is distributed. Odisha is one of India's major mineral-producing states, making changes to mining regulation and taxation particularly important for its public finances. At the same time, the Union government's position is that the amendment is designed to provide stability to the mining sector without removing states' existing revenue interests. The key question is therefore how the amended provisions will operate in practice and how courts, state governments and the Union government interpret their respective powers.
According to the Ministry of Mines, the 2026 amendment does not take away states' rights over land and minerals or their existing share of mineral-related taxes. The government says that around 90% of total taxes and statutory payments in the mining sector accrue to states and that this broad revenue arrangement will continue.
The government has also said that the amendment is intended to provide greater stability and predictability in the major-minerals sector and encourage investment and development.
This difference in interpretation is at the heart of the current political dispute.
For Odisha, the issue has particular importance because mining is a major source of state revenue. Government figures cited in its defence of the amendment show that states collectively received around ₹1.14 lakh crore from mineral revenue in 2025-26, while Odisha has also been a major beneficiary of auction premiums and mining-related receipts.
The political disagreement also comes against the backdrop of a July 2024 Supreme Court judgment that recognised the power of states to levy taxes on mineral rights and mineral-bearing land. The amended legislation has therefore become part of a wider debate over how mineral taxation and regulatory authority should be divided between the Centre and states.
The current protest does not by itself change the law. The amendment remains part of the statutory framework unless it is subsequently changed through Parliament or affected by judicial proceedings.
