🕸️BPSC WEB🕸️

MMDR (Amendment) Bill, 2026 Context: Parliament passed the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026, amending the MMDR Act, 1957, mainly to regulate States’ taxation of mineral rights and mineral-bearing land. What has changed? -New Section 9D: States cannot independently impose a tax, cess or other levy on mineral rights/mineral-bearing land; such levies must conform to conditions/restrictions prescribed by the Centre. -Mineral-bearing land is brought explicitly within the Union’s regulatory framework under the MMDR Act. -Past dues: Levies already collected before commencement are retained, but amounts not collected/recovered before commencement become invalid, affecting retrospective claims. Why are mineral-rich States fearing revenue loss? The controversy follows the 2024 Supreme Court judgment in Mineral Area Development Authority v. SAIL, which held that royalty is not a tax and recognised States’ legislative competence to tax mineral rights. The 2026 amendment effectively constrains the fiscal space opened by that judgment. -Jharkhand: Its Mineral Bearing Land Cess was expected to yield roughly Rs. 11,000 crore annually, hence the State argues that restrictions could significantly reduce its own-source revenue. -Odisha: The State fears losing both prospective mineral-tax revenue and large retrospective dues, with political estimates putting outstanding claims above Rs. 1 trillion.

Antrix–Devas case (2026): A US appeals court upheld a $562.5-million arbitral award against Antrix, holding that foreign sovereign immunity does not bar enforcement of an arbitration award in the US. #CA2026

Gender Justice & Judicial Sensitivity: -Law beyond clinical legalism: Mechanical interpretation of law can obscure human suffering; judicial reasoning must combine legality with dignity, empathy and constitutional morality. -Language shapes justice: Terms such as “helpless female”, “lost her chastity” or “outraging modesty” reinforce patriarchal stereotypes. Courtroom vocabulary should recognise survivors as rights-bearing individuals, not objects of honour or sympathy. -Language–Justice Gap: Merely replacing insensitive words is insufficient unless the underlying stereotypes and assumptions influencing judicial reasoning also change. -From chastity to bodily autonomy: Sexual violence should be understood as a violation of bodily autonomy, dignity and consent, rather than an injury to a woman’s “honour” or “chastity”. -Trauma-informed justice: Delayed reporting, absence of visible injuries or apparently calm behaviour should not automatically undermine credibility; trauma manifests differently across survivors. -Courtroom as a site of secondary victimisation: Insensitive questioning, moral judgement and procedural indifference can make survivors experience victimisation again within the justice system. -State’s positive obligation: Survivor protection should not depend entirely on the survivor demanding it; the State and judiciary must proactively ensure safety, legal assistance and procedural protection. -Institutional gap: The article notes that four out of five stakeholders surveyed were unaware of the Witness Protection Scheme- showing the gap between rights on paper and rights in practice. -Historical continuum: From Bhanwari Devi —> Vishaka Guidelines —> contemporary cases, repeated tragedies have driven reforms; India needs institutionalised prevention rather than reform only after outrage.

👆👆 ESSAY