MMDR Amendment Sparks Fresh Odisha Mining Row as BJP, BJD Trade Charges

The BJP and BJD have traded charges over the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2026 and the use of District Mineral Foundation (DMF) funds in Odisha.

The dispute intensified after the Odisha Assembly monsoon session was adjourned sine die four days early following disruptions over demands for withdrawal of the amended mining law, passed by Parliament in August.

The amended law provides for greater Union control over regulation of mineral-bearing lands meeting parameters prescribed by the Centre. Section 9D places restrictions on states imposing taxes, cesses or other levies on mineral rights or mineral-bearing lands, subject to conditions in the legislation.

The BJD and Congress have opposed the changes, arguing that they affect the powers and revenues of mineral-rich states. The state government told the Assembly that it had not yet assessed the financial impact of the amendment. The BJD has also sought withdrawal of the legislation.

The BJP has linked the debate with political donations received by the BJD. BJP spokesperson Anil Biswal claimed that the BJD received ₹775 crore in donations, of which ₹682 crore, or around 88 per cent, came from mining companies. The BJD rejected the allegation of wrongdoing and asked the BJP to disclose its corporate donations.

A CAG audit of DMF spending for 2015-16 to 2023-24 found ₹983.32 crore spent in 976 villages not identified as mining-affected, while 584 mining-affected villages had no DMF-funded project. It also found ₹679.14 crore sanctioned for projects outside the permissible framework of the Pradhan Mantri Khanij Kshetra Kalyan Yojana, taking the spending flagged by the audit to more than ₹1,662 crore.

The mining dispute also recalls the Justice M B Shah Commission’s Odisha report, which estimated unlawful extraction of iron and manganese ore at ₹59,200 crore during 2008-11. The commission had recommended recovery of the amount from miners.

The BJP has demanded an open debate on the MMDR amendment and CAG findings, while the BJD has defended its handling of DMF funds.