Bhubaneswar: A delegation of the Biju Janata Dal (BJD) on Wednesday met Odisha Governor Dr Hari Babu Kambhampati and submitted a memorandum seeking the intervention of President Droupadi Murmu over the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2026.
The memorandum was addressed to the President through the Governor. The BJD leaders claimed that the amendment could affect Odisha’s constitutional rights, fiscal interests and legitimate interests in its mineral resources.
The party highlighted Odisha’s position as one of India’s major mineral-rich states, with substantial reserves of iron ore, coal, bauxite, chromite and other minerals. It said mineral resources have historically been an important source of revenue for the state and warned that any measure curtailing Odisha’s rights and financial interests in mines and mineral-bearing lands would have far-reaching consequences.
A major point raised by the delegation was the impact of a nine-Judge Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court dated July 25, 2026. According to the memorandum, the court recognised the power of state governments to impose taxes and levies on mines and mineral-bearing lands and dealt with recovery of such dues from April 1, 2005.
The BJD said Odisha could receive more than ₹1 lakh crore in arrears, besides an estimated Rs 12,000 crore in additional annual revenue, following the judgment. The party said the money would have significant implications for the state’s ability to fund infrastructure, education, healthcare, irrigation, rural development and welfare programmes.
The memorandum raised particular objections to provisions of the MMDR Amendment Act, 2026. The BJD claimed that the amendment expands Union control under Section 2 to include “mineral-bearing lands”, restricts state governments under Section 9D from imposing taxes, cesses or similar charges on mineral rights and mineral-bearing lands, and gives the Centre powers under Section 13 to frame rules that could limit state taxation.
The party argued that these provisions could affect Odisha’s fiscal autonomy and alter the constitutional balance between the Centre and the states. It said any move that deprives Odisha of arrears and future revenue recognised after the Supreme Court judgment would raise questions of cooperative and fiscal federalism.
The BJD also questioned claims that Odisha would not suffer any financial loss because of the amendment. The memorandum referred to an earlier assessment in the Odisha Review and an affidavit filed by the Advocate General of Odisha before the Supreme Court, which, according to the party, recognised the financial importance of mining-related arrears and future revenue.
The party said the issue was not limited to revenue collection but involved broader questions of constitutional federalism, fiscal autonomy and the state’s right to benefit from its natural resources.
The memorandum also referred to Article 244(1) and the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution, highlighting the Governor’s special constitutional responsibilities concerning Scheduled Areas and Scheduled Tribes. However, it clarified that the representation was not confined to Scheduled Areas or any particular community, and instead concerned Odisha’s wider constitutional, fiscal and statutory interests in its mineral resources.
The BJD further argued that Odisha bears the environmental, social and infrastructure-related burdens associated with mining and should therefore receive a fair share of the financial benefits generated from its mineral wealth.
The memorandum noted that BJD president and Leader of Opposition Naveen Patnaik had already expressed concern over the MMDR Amendment Bill, while BJD MPs had opposed the legislation in Parliament, particularly over its possible impact on the financial rights of mineral-rich states such as Odisha.
The delegation urged President to consider the memorandum and take appropriate steps to protect what the party described as the constitutional and financial rights of Odisha and its people.