Polity · 19 Aug 2026

MMDR Amendment Bill Entry 50

Assertion (A): The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026, which restricts states' power to tax mineral rights and mineral-bearing lands through its Section 9D, does not contradict the Supreme Court's 2024 verdict in Mineral Area Development Authority v. Steel Authority of India Ltd.
Reason (R): Entry 50 of the State List, under which states derive their power to tax mineral rights, is itself constitutionally made "subject to any limitations imposed by Parliament by law relating to mineral development."

ABoth A and R are true and R is the correct explanation of A
BBoth A and R are true, but R is not the correct explanation of A
CA is true, but R is false
DA is false, but R is true
This question is based on: Parliament Just Legislated Around a Nine-Judge Bench
Take this in full test mode → Instructions for 19 Aug 2026
About this question

Why in news

The MMDR Amendment Bill, 2026 was passed by Parliament in mid-August 2026, directly following the Supreme Court's July 2024 nine-judge ruling, prompting objections such as Kerala Chief Minister V.D. Satheesan's letter to the Prime Minister over the erosion of state revenue autonomy.

Why for UPSC

Assertion-Reasoning on constitutional entries and their qualifying clauses tests exactly the depth UPSC rewards - distinguishing "the Court affirmed a power exists" from "the Court affirmed the power is unconditional," a distinction easy to miss on a surface reading of the news.

Prelims summary

Entry 50 (State List) empowers states to tax mineral rights but is itself "subject to limitations imposed by Parliament" - a qualifying clause the MMDR Amendment Bill, 2026's Section 9D exercises without contradicting the 2024 MADA v. SAIL verdict.

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.