MMDR Act 2026 resets Jharkhand's mining compliance baseline

Last verified: September 1, 2026. The present reported baseline is that the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2026 inserts Section 9D to bar states from imposing a tax, cess, fee or other levy on mineral rights or mineral-bearing land when the charge is calculated by reference to mineral quantity or value. The amendment also reportedly expands Section 2 to refer expressly to “mineral bearing lands.”[1] Secondary legal reporting identifies a new Section 3 clause (ada) defining that term and places Section 9D after Section 9C.[2]

Source and confidence note: The primary enacted text was not available in the source materials. The available secondary sources support the statutory mechanism described below, but they do not permit independent confirmation of the assent date, Gazette number, commencement provision or complete section wording. Those details should be checked against the official Gazette before counsel treats a specific liability as extinguished or changes a payment position.

For pending demands, timing matters as much as the levy’s formula. The reported amendment invalidates covered historical state levies that remain unpaid or unrecovered, while denying refunds for amounts already deposited or recovered.[3] A company facing an old cess assessment therefore cannot answer the exposure question merely by deciding whether the assessment falls within Section 9D. It must also establish where the money was at the legally relevant point: still demanded, deposited by the operator, or already recovered by the state.

The reported treatment of state levies

The table is a triage tool, not a substitute for construing the enacted provision. In particular, “unpaid,” “unrecovered,” “deposited” and “recovered” can become contested classifications when money was paid under protest, held in an escrow arrangement, adjusted against another account or transferred following an interim order. The documentary sequence should be reconstructed before the legal conclusion is recorded.

Jharkhand’s cess is the immediate exposure

Jharkhand’s Mineral Bearing Land Cess is the clearest state-level issue raised by the amendment. Moneycontrol reports that the cess collected Rs 7,488 crore in FY26 and was projected to generate Rs 13,215 crore in FY27.[3] Those figures indicate the possible scale of revenue affected; they are not audited budget data in the available sources, and the FY27 amount is a projection rather than a collection.

The practical inquiry must proceed assessment by assessment. Counsel should obtain the state charging provision, rate schedule, returns, demand notices, payment records and any correspondence describing the calculation. A levy attached to “land” in name may still fall within the reported prohibition if its amount is calculated from the quantity or value of minerals. Conversely, the fact that land is mineral-bearing does not by itself establish that every charge relating to it uses the prohibited measure.

Operators should separate their files into at least three accounting populations: amounts accrued but not paid, amounts deposited or paid under protest, and amounts recovered through adjustment or enforcement. Combining them into one disputed-cess balance obscures the amendment’s most consequential asymmetry. The unpaid portion may be reported as invalidated, while a payment made one stage earlier may fall into the no-refund category.

• Identify the statutory source and calculation base for every cess or land-related demand; do not rely on the assessment’s label.
• Reconcile demand, deposit, payment, recovery and adjustment dates against bank records and state account statements.
• Preserve protest letters, interim orders, guarantees, escrow terms and communications concerning appropriation.
• Record separately the legal conclusion, accounting treatment and decision on whether to continue payment while commencement and enforcement instructions are confirmed.
• Avoid recognizing a refund receivable solely because the underlying levy appears to be within Section 9D; the reported amendment expressly protects completed deposits and recoveries from refund.

The reported Rs 7,488 crore collection is therefore relevant in two directions. It indicates substantial state exposure if future collections stop, but it may also represent amounts that operators cannot recover where payment or recovery was already completed. Aggregate revenue reporting does not reveal how much sits in either category.

The 2024 Supreme Court judgment explains the legislative setting

The amendment follows the Supreme Court’s July 2024 nine-judge-bench decision in Mineral Area Development Authority v. Steel Authority of India. The Court held that states possess legislative competence to tax mineral rights and mineral-bearing land.[4] It also held that royalty paid by a mining lessee is not a tax.[5] The formal case number, neutral citation and SCC reference were not included in the available sources and are not supplied here.

That decision and the 2026 amendment address different institutional acts. The judgment concerned the scope of state taxing competence and the character of royalty. The amendment reportedly imposes a statutory restriction within the central mining framework on a particular measure of state levy. The existence of the judgment does not, by itself, answer whether every Jharkhand cess assessment survives, nor does enactment of the amendment settle how a constitutional challenge to Parliament’s response would be decided.

Commentary has described the amendment as part of a broader centralization of control and reports that it was among 11 bills passed without discussion during the 2026 Monsoon Session. The same commentary notes changes concerning additions to leases for strategic and critical minerals.[6] Those policy criticisms and associated provisions help explain the wider dispute, but they do not replace the narrower Section 9D analysis required for a Jharkhand cess file.

Challenge plans do not yet supply a Jharkhand enforcement position

Kerala, Karnataka and Telangana were reported to be planning Supreme Court challenges to the amendment.[3] That is evidence of anticipated litigation, not evidence that a court has stayed Section 9D or that Jharkhand has joined a proceeding. Jharkhand’s own challenge status remains unconfirmed in the available materials.

No Jharkhand High Court decision or Jharkhand mining-department enforcement action dated 2025 or 2026 was identified in the available sources. There is consequently no state directive in those sources answering whether authorities will stop issuing demands, suspend recovery, continue collection pending litigation or distinguish among categories of operator. This absence should not be mistaken for proof that no communication exists; it means a company must obtain the current directive directly rather than infer it from political reporting.

Public messaging also pulls in opposite directions. NLC India stated in a social-media post that states continue to receive more than 90% of the benefits under the amendment, while CMPDI separately asserted that states continue to benefit and that land rights remain protected.[7][8] The available sources do not independently substantiate the percentage or define its denominator. These issuer statements cannot resolve the fiscal effect identified by the reported Jharkhand cess figures, just as commentary describing curtailed state fiscal powers cannot establish the treatment of a particular assessment without the statute and payment record.

No verifiable BJP 2026 campaign pledge was found

The available sources contain no official BJP or Jharkhand BJP 2026 campaign commitment concerning the MMDR amendment, Jharkhand’s Mineral Bearing Land Cess or mineral-revenue policy. The available official party material is Amit Shah’s 2024 speech launching the Jharkhand Sankalp Patra; it contains no mining, MMDR or mineral-revenue pledge.[9] It should not be converted into a 2026 position.

Political descriptions in the available sources are also inconsistent. Moneycontrol places Jharkhand among opposition states and describes it as Congress-ruled,[3] while a separately listed Times of India headline refers to a “Jharkhand govt’s campaign” and attributes a “political drama” characterization to the BJP’s state president.[10] The latter report was not available for review, so its substance cannot be quoted or used to infer a party commitment, litigation position or likely enforcement outcome.

For current compliance, operators should use the reported amendment as the working baseline while maintaining a separate verification track for the Gazette text, commencement provision, Jharkhand departmental instructions and any court filing or interim order. Until those records are obtained, the defensible conclusion is bounded: quantity- or value-based state levies are reportedly barred; covered unpaid historical liabilities are reportedly invalidated; completed deposits and recoveries are reportedly non-refundable; and neither an unverified campaign position nor an anticipated challenge changes that working treatment.

References

1. Why mineral-rich states are upset over amending mines law, The New Indian Express, August 22, 2026
2. Mines & Minerals Amendment Act 2026: Assent, State Levies & Section 9D, Veritect
3. MMDR Act 2026: Why are opposition-ruled states against the new mining law and what has changed? Explained, Moneycontrol
4. States’ power to tax mines and minerals: Judgement matrix, Supreme Court Observer
5. Is royalty paid by mine leaseholders to the Union government a form of tax? | Mineral Area Development Authority v. Steel Authority of India, Supreme Court Observer
6. MMDR Amendment Act, federalism, and new extractivism, Frontline
7. Under the MMDR Amendment Act 2026, states continue to receive more than 90% of the benefits, NLC India
8. The MMDR Amendment Act 2026 ensures states continue to benefit; land rights remain protected, CMPDI
9. Salient points from the speech of Hon’ble Union Home Minister and Minister of Cooperation Shri Amit Shah, Bharatiya Janata Party, 2024
10. Marandi calls Jharkhand govt’s campaign against MMDR amendment ‘political drama’, The Times of India