Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill on One Nation One Election: HLC Kovind Report, Rs 1,00,000 Cr Black Money, Article 82A

Parliament Passes Mines and Minerals Amendment Act 2026 Overriding SC Ruling, Extinguishes Rs 2 Lakh Cr Dues

The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2026 restricts states from imposing specified levies on mineral rights and extinguishes ~Rs 2 lakh crore in unpaid dues. Mineral-rich states like Odisha and Jharkhand oppose it as a blow to federal fiscal autonomy, potentially losing thousands of crores annually. This reverses the financial impact of a landmark 2024 Supreme Court ruling that had empowered states to tax mineral-bearing lands.

Parliament Passes MMDR Amendment 2026 Restricting States' Levy Powers on Mineral Rights

Parliament has passed the Mines and Minerals (Amendment) Bill, 2026, limiting states' power to impose taxes on mineral rights, overriding a Supreme Court judgment that upheld such state powers. This move aims to boost investment certainty but has sparked concerns over fiscal federalism and state revenues, especially for mineral-rich states like Odisha, Jharkhand, and Chhattisgarh.

MMDR Amendment 2026: Section 9D Restricts State Taxes on Mineral-Bearing Land, Federal Row

The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2026 introduces Section 9D, which restricts states from imposing taxes, cesses, or levies on mineral rights and mineral-bearing land without central approval. This centralizing move has sparked a federal controversy, as mineral-rich states like Odisha and Chhattisgarh argue it undermines their fiscal autonomy and ignores the 2024 Supreme Court judgment that recognized their taxation power over minerals.

MMDR Amendment Act 2026 Centralizes Mineral Taxation, Bypasses SC 2024 Ruling on States' Rights

The MMDR Amendment Act, 2026, passed by Parliament, gives the Union government complete control over mineral and mineral land taxation, overriding the 2024 Supreme Court ruling that affirmed states' fiscal rights. This move erodes fiscal federalism and could cut 10-20% of revenues for mining-dependent states, sparking constitutional concerns.

SC Split Verdict on CEC/EC Appointment Act, 2023; Matter Referred to CJI for Constitution Bench

A two-judge Supreme Court bench has split on whether to refer the challenge to the CEC and ECs (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 to a five-judge Constitution Bench. With Justice Dipankar Datta disagreeing with Justice S C Sharma, the case now goes to the CJI for constituting a larger bench. For aspirants, this is a direct link to Article 324, the Anoop Baranwal verdict, and the independence of the Election Commission.

₹1,700 Cr Donations to 6 RUPPs: Need for De-Registration Powers to EC

An investigation revealed that six Registered Unrecognised Political Parties (RUPPs) in Gujarat received ₹1,700 crore in donations in 2023-24, exceeding the combined donations of all national parties except the BJP. This highlights regulatory gaps that allow RUPPs to be used as conduits for tax evasion and money laundering. The article examines the need for the Election Commission to have de-registration powers and suggests a vote threshold for tax exemptions to curb misuse.

Supreme Court Refers Challenge to 2023 EC Appointment Law to 5-Judge Constitution Bench

The Supreme Court has referred the challenge to the 2023 law on appointment of Election Commissioners to a 5-judge Constitution Bench after a split verdict. The law replaced the Chief Justice of India with a Union Cabinet Minister in the selection committee, raising concerns about executive dominance and independence of the Election Commission. This case is crucial for exam aspirants as it involves constitutional principles of independence of constitutional bodies and separation of powers.

SC Refers 2023 CEC Appointment Law to CJI for Constitution Bench; Excludes CJI from Selection Panel

The Supreme Court has referred the challenge to the 2023 law on appointment of CEC and ECs to the CJI for consideration of a Constitution Bench. The law replaced the CJI with a Cabinet minister in the selection panel, raising concerns about executive influence. A split verdict between two judges led to the referral.