Question map
Consider the following statements : Statement I : In India, State Governments have no power for making rules for grant of concessions in respect of extraction of minor minerals even though such minerals are located in their territories. Statement II : In India, the Central Government has the power to notify minor minerals under the relevant law. Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?
Explanation
**Statement I is incorrect.** The State Governments grant the mineral concessions/rights for all the minerals located within the boundary of the State, under provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act 1957) by taking prior permission of Central Government.[1] This clearly establishes that State Governments do have the power to grant concessions for minerals, including minor minerals, within their territories. The claim that they have "no power" is therefore false.
**Statement II is correct.** Minor minerals are those which are declared as such by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section I (a) of the Mines & Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957.[2] This confirms that the Central Government indeed has the statutory power to notify and declare which minerals are classified as minor minerals.
Since Statement I is incorrect but Statement II is correct, **option D is the right answer**. This reflects the constitutional division of powers where the Centre defines mineral categories while States administer concessions.
Sources- [1] Indian Economy, Vivek Singh (7th ed. 2023-24) > Chapter 14: Infrastructure and Investment Models > 14.11 Coal, Coal Mines Act 2015 and MMDR Act 2015 > p. 427
- [2] https://www.mospi.gov.in/sites/default/files/reports_and_publication/statistical_manual/Chapter%2012.pdf
PROVENANCE & STUDY PATTERN
Full viewThis is a classic 'Federalism in Administration' question. Statement I uses an extreme negative ('no power') regarding local resources (minor minerals), which contradicts the constitutional logic of land being a State subject. The core facts are available in standard Economy and Environment texts (Vivek Singh, Shankar IAS).
This question can be broken into the following sub-statements. Tap a statement sentence to jump into its detailed analysis.
- Statement 1: Under Indian mineral law (Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957), do State Governments have the power to make rules and grant concessions for the extraction of minor minerals located within their territories?
- Statement 2: Under Indian mineral law (Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957), does the Central Government have the power to notify which minerals are classified as "minor minerals"?
- Explicitly states State Governments grant mineral concessions/rights for all minerals located within the State boundary under the MMDR Act, 1957.
- Implies that concessions for minerals in a state's territory (which includes minor minerals) are within state authority, subject to central permission.
- Describes a State-level rule (Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules 2011) governing sand (a minor mineral), showing states frame rules for minor mineral extraction.
- Details state administrative arrangements (departmental oversight, district committees, open bidding) for allocating mineral concessions.
- Specifies district-level authorities (District Collector, DEIAA/DEAC) empowered to grant environment clearance up to 5 hectares for minor minerals, reflecting state/decentralized regulatory control.
- Highlights procedural and sustainable-mining guidelines within the state/district regulatory framework for minor minerals.
- Explicitly states that 'minor minerals' are declared by the Central Government under the Act.
- Says such declarations are revised and notified in the Gazette of India, showing formal notification power.
- Shows the Central Government exercising powers under the Act to amend a Schedule (via Section 9), demonstrating authority to notify/define mineral classifications.
- Provides an example of the Central Government making notifications under provisions of the 1957 Act.
States grant mineral concessions under the MMDR Act but do so "by taking prior permission of Central Government," implying the Central Government has supervisory/authoritative roles under the Act.
A student could check the Act's text or schedules to see whether classification/notification powers (e.g., defining mineral categories) are among the Central Government functions requiring or exercising that supervisory role.
The snippet explicitly states the Central Government has powers to intervene where State governments do not pass orders within prescribed timelines, indicating the Centre can act where states fail to act under the MMDR framework.
One could infer that if states are responsible for notifications but fail, the Centre's intervention power might extend to issuing notifications itself—so check specific provisions about notification and timelines in the Act.
Lists central agencies (Ministry of Mines, Geological Survey, Indian Bureau of Mines) as sources of mineral information, showing central administrative involvement in mineral classification and data.
A student could use these agencies' roles to hypothesize that the Centre has the institutional capacity (and likely legal authority) to create notifications/classifications and then verify in the MMDR Act or official notifications.
Notes an "Ill-Defined Government Policy" regarding prospecting, extraction and processing of minerals, suggesting that classification/notification of minerals has been a subject of policy/legal ambiguity.
This clue supports looking up whether the ambiguity has been resolved by central notifications or amendments to the Act that allocate notification powers between Centre and States.
- [THE VERDICT]: Sitter. Direct coverage in standard Economy (Vivek Singh) and Environment (Shankar IAS) books. If you missed this, your reading of the MMDR Act summary was too superficial.
- [THE CONCEPTUAL TRIGGER]: Resource Federalism (Centre vs. State jurisdiction). Specifically, the distinction between Schedule I (Major) minerals and Minor minerals.
- [THE HORIZONTAL EXPANSION]: 1. Centre notifies what constitutes a 'Minor Mineral' (Sec 3e). 2. State makes rules for grant of concessions for Minor Minerals (Sec 15). 3. State also makes rules to prevent illegal mining (Sec 23C). 4. Offshore mining is exclusively Central jurisdiction. 5. District Mineral Foundation (DMF) is established by States, but NMET (National Mineral Exploration Trust) is Central.
- [THE STRATEGIC METACOGNITION]: When studying any Act (MMDR, Forest Act, EPA), create a 'Jurisdiction Table'. Column A: Powers of Centre (Notification, Policy). Column B: Powers of State (Implementation, Rules for minor categories). UPSC loves swapping these columns to create trap statements.
State governments are empowered to grant mineral concessions/rights for minerals within their territorial boundaries under the MMDR Act, 1957.
High-yield for questions on Centre–State division of powers and resource federalism; connects to federalism, state governance, and regulatory jurisdiction topics. Useful for analyzing conflicts where central approval or intervention is also involved.
- Indian Economy, Vivek Singh (7th ed. 2023-24) > Chapter 14: Infrastructure and Investment Models > 14.11 Coal, Coal Mines Act 2015 and MMDR Act 2015 > p. 427
States can enact specific concession rules for minor minerals, including departmental oversight and allocation mechanisms like committees and open bidding.
Important for questions on implementation of resource policy at state level and environmental governance; links to topics on state regulations, local administration, and sustainable resource use. Enables answers on how state policies shape ground-level mining practices.
- Environment, Shankar IAS Acedemy .(ed 10th) > Chapter 6: Environmental Issues > Current rules and policies in operation relation to sand mining > p. 114
District authorities (e.g., District Collector, DEIAA/DEAC) are empowered to grant environmental clearances for small-area minor mineral mining, reflecting decentralised regulation.
Valuable for questions on decentralisation and local governance in environmental regulation; connects to disaster/environment management, state institutions, and implementation challenges. Helps frame answers about granular administrative roles in mining regulation.
- Environment, Shankar IAS Acedemy .(ed 10th) > Chapter 6: Environmental Issues > Guidelines for Sustainable Sand & Minor Mineral Mining > p. 115
State governments grant mineral concessions but must take prior permission of the Central Government.
High-yield for questions on federal division of powers and resource governance; links mineral administration to constitutional federalism and intergovernmental coordination. Useful for questions asking who grants rights, what permissions are needed, and conflict resolution between Centre and states.
- Indian Economy, Vivek Singh (7th ed. 2023-24) > Chapter 14: Infrastructure and Investment Models > 14.11 Coal, Coal Mines Act 2015 and MMDR Act 2015 > p. 427
The Central Government is empowered to intervene where state governments do not pass orders within prescribed timelines.
Important for governance and administrative law topics — explains supervisory/override mechanisms and timelines enforcement. Helps answer questions about central oversight, administrative remedies, and prevention of delays in state-level resource administration.
- Indian Economy, Vivek Singh (7th ed. 2023-24) > Chapter 14: Infrastructure and Investment Models > Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act 1957: > p. 429
The Act provides for creation of District Mineral Foundations by state governments in districts where mining takes place.
Relevant for policy questions linking mining regulation to local development and restitution mechanisms. Connects resource regulation to local institutions, corporate social responsibility, and district-level welfare schemes — commonly asked in governance and public policy contexts.
- Indian Economy, Vivek Singh (7th ed. 2023-24) > Chapter 14: Infrastructure and Investment Models > Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act 1957: > p. 429
The 'Sand Mining' Trap: While States frame rules for minor minerals (like sand), the Environmental Clearance (EC) process is governed by the Centre's EIA Notification 2006. However, for small leases (<5 ha), the Centre delegated EC powers to District Level Authorities (DEIAA), though NGT later challenged this. Know the difference between 'Mining Lease' (State domain for minor) and 'Environmental Clearance' (Central domain delegated).
The 'Territorial Sovereignty' Logic: Statement I says States have 'no power' for minerals 'located in their territories'. In the Indian Constitution, Land is List II (State List). While the Centre can regulate mines (List I, Entry 54), completely stripping States of *all* rule-making power for *minor* minerals (like gravel/sand) is administratively impossible and constitutionally unlikely. Extreme negative + Federal conflict = False.
Mains GS-2 (Federalism) & GS-3 (Environment): Use this to argue how 'Minor Minerals' (sand) are a classic example of decentralized corruption. Since States have full power to frame rules (Statement I is false), the lack of uniform central oversight often leads to the 'Sand Mafia' phenomenon and riverbed degradation.