GS II: Issues and challenges pertaining to the federal structure.
Context: Recent changes in the mineral taxation and regulatory framework have renewed debate over the balance between Union control over major minerals and States’ fiscal rights, raising wider concerns about fiscal federalism and State autonomy.
Evolution of Mineral Governance
- Post-Independence Framework: In the early years, States exercised greater control over mineral resources, enabling States such as West Bengal to pursue their own industrialisation strategies based on natural resources.
- Mines and Minerals Framework: The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 established a stronger role for the Union Government in regulating major minerals, while States retained important roles, including mineral-related revenue powers.
- Federal Compromise: The framework attempted to balance central regulatory control with State fiscal interests arising from mineral resources.
UPSC Course Fees Online
Major and Minor Minerals
- Major Minerals: Include resources such as coal, iron ore and bauxite, where the Union Government has a significant regulatory role.
- Minor Minerals: Include materials such as building stone, sand and gravel, over which States exercise greater regulatory authority.
- Federal Dimension: Mineral governance therefore represents an important intersection of Union regulatory powers, State revenues and local economic interests.
Recent Shift in Mineral Taxation
- Centralisation: The recent legislative changes have raised concerns about a further centralisation of powers relating to mineral-bearing lands and mineral taxation.
- State Revenue: Mineral-rich States such as Odisha, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh could face significant implications for their own-source revenues.
- Fiscal Federalism: Greater Union control over a traditionally important State revenue base can affect the financial autonomy of States.
Supreme Court and Mineral Taxation
- Constitutional Debate: The issue has also been shaped by the Supreme Court’s interpretation of States’ constitutional authority to impose taxes relating to mineral rights.
- Centre–State Tension: Subsequent legislative intervention has generated debate over the appropriate balance between Parliamentary legislation and States’ constitutionally recognised fiscal powers.
Why Mining Requires Local Participation
- Localised Activity: Mining has highly localised economic, social and environmental consequences, making State and local-level participation important.
- Environmental Impact: Mining can cause land degradation, deforestation, water pollution and displacement of communities.
- Social Licence: A mining project requires more than a statutory licence; it also needs a “social licence to operate”, based on community trust and participation.
- State Capacity: Local governments and State administrations are often better positioned to understand ground-level social and environmental consequences.
Concerns over Centralisation
- Fiscal Autonomy: Excessive concentration of revenue sources at the Union level can weaken State fiscal autonomy.
- Developmental Impact: Reduced mineral revenues could constrain the ability of resource-rich States to finance infrastructure and welfare programmes.
- One-Size-Fits-All Approach: Centralised decision-making may overlook State-specific geological, economic and social conditions.
- Cooperative Federalism: Persistent unilateral changes can weaken the spirit of cooperative and consultative federalism.
UPSC Coaching Classes
Lessons from China
- Fiscal Centralisation: China undertook significant fiscal recentralisation in 1994, increasing the share of revenues retained by the central government.
- Provincial Flexibility: At the same time, provinces were provided certain avenues for financial innovation and access to capital markets.
- Regional Growth: Greater financial flexibility enabled provinces to develop region-specific growth models.
- Indian Lesson: Fiscal centralisation, if undertaken, should be accompanied by adequate alternative revenue mechanisms and financial autonomy for States.
Way Forward
- Cooperative Federalism: Major changes in mineral governance should involve meaningful consultation with affected States.
- Predictable Revenue Sharing: Establish a stable and transparent mechanism for sharing mineral-related revenues between the Union and States.
- State Fiscal Space: Ensure that States retain adequate revenue-raising capacity to fulfil their constitutional and developmental responsibilities.
- Mineral Governance Council: Consider a Centre–State institutional mechanism for resolving disputes and coordinating mineral policy.
- Local Community Participation: Strengthen Gram Sabhas, local bodies and affected communities in decisions involving mining projects.
- Environmental Governance: Link mineral development with sustainable mining, ecological restoration and rehabilitation of affected communities.
- Balanced Centralisation: Union-level regulation should focus on national strategic interests, while States should retain meaningful authority over local implementation and development outcomes.
Click to Explore UPSC Offline Coaching
Conclusion
Mineral governance lies at the intersection of natural-resource management, fiscal federalism, environmental protection and State autonomy. The objective should not be a complete transfer of powers to either level of government, but a balanced federal arrangement in which national interests are protected while States retain adequate fiscal space, institutional authority and local decision-making capacity.
29 Aug 2026
