Polity · 17 Aug 2026

Entry 50 Entry 54 mineral taxation

Match List-I with List-II and select the correct answer using the codes given below:
List-I (Item)
A. Entry 50, State List
B. Entry 54, Union List
C. Mineral Area Development Authority v. Steel Authority of India (2024)
D. India Cements Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu (1989)
List-II (Description)

  1. Regulation of mines and mineral development
  2. Held that royalty on minerals is not a tax
  3. State taxation of mineral rights, subject to limitations imposed by Parliament
  4. Earlier ruling that royalty is in the nature of a tax, later overruled
AA-3, B-1, C-4, D-2
BA-1, B-3, C-2, D-4
CA-1, B-3, C-4, D-2
DA-3, B-1, C-2, D-4
This question is based on: Parliament Just Used Entry 54 to Undo What a 9-Judge Bench Gave States Under Entry 50
Take this in full test mode → Instructions for 17 Aug 2026
About this question

Why in news

Parliament passed the MMDR Amendment Bill, 2026 on August 13, 2026, inserting a new Section 9D capping states' mineral levies - a move states like Jharkhand call an attack on the fiscal federalism the 2024 Constitution Bench ruling had affirmed, with Jharkhand projecting a Rs 13,215 crore revenue loss in 2026-27.

Why for UPSC

This tests the frequently confused Entry 50/Entry 54 distinction and its associated case law chain - exactly the kind of static constitutional architecture a current event like the MMDR Bill is built to illuminate, rather than the political controversy itself.

Prelims summary

Entry 50 (State List) gives states power to tax mineral rights, subject to Parliament's limitations; Entry 54 (Union List) covers regulation of mineral development. The 2024 Constitution Bench (overruling India Cements, 1989) held royalty is not a tax, which the MMDR Amendment Bill, 2026 now qualifies using Parliament's Entry 50 reservation.

On web, answers are shown once after a test — no save or reattempt. For unlimited reattempts, Hindi medium, and Mentor Observations, use the TAN App.