'You Can't Over-Rule A Supreme Court Judgment By Making A Law'

'This government is in the very bad habit of doing so again and again. It has done so many times.'

The passing of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2026 (MMDR) by Parliament during the monsoon session has triggered a sharp Constitutional debate over the balance of power between the Centre and the states, particularly over who has the right to tax and control mineral resources within a state's territory.

Critics argue that by seeking to curtail the states' ability to levy taxes on minerals, the legislation effectively centralises control over a resource that the Supreme Court, which in its July 2024 judgment held to fall substantially within the states' domain.

Supreme Court Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, in an interview with Syed Firdaus Ashraf/Rediff views the legislation as a direct challenge to the federal structure of the Constitution, arguing that Parliament cannot simply overturn a binding Supreme Court judgment through legislation.

'The central government is reversing a judgment of the Supreme Court'

How do you see the passing of the MMDR Act 2026 in Parliament?

The central government is reversing a judgment of the Supreme Court.

In July 2024, the Supreme Court had given a judgment where it said minerals of the state belong to the state (government).

Given a judgment like that, the MMDR Act 2026 changes things completely because the central government is now saying that it has total control of all the minerals in the country.

And the court is saying it belongs to the states or at least the states have some control over the ownership of the minerals that are within their boundaries.

This law will give the Union government control and ownership over those minerals. This is something that the government cannot do.

Parliament cannot by law over-rule the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court can by a judgment over-rule a law made by Parliament. They can set aside a law made by Parliament, but the reverse is not correct.

In a democracy, the elected representatives are supreme and hence Parliament is supreme in India. Isn't it?

No, not at all. In every democracy in the world -- you take the UK, the USA or any democratic country in South Asia -- it is the supremacy of the constitution and not the supremacy of parliament.

Even in the United Kingdom where you had the supremacy of the monarch and the supremacy of parliament, there too the supremacy of the constitution holds.

When you say supremacy of the Constitution it means supremacy of the Supreme Court because it is the Supreme Court's Constitutional duty to protect and give effect to the Constitution.

So you cannot say Parliament is supreme, otherwise tomorrow in India, say, Parliament passes a bill for a Hindu Rashtra, but this will not hold because the Constitution does not say that.

The ultimate decider is the Supreme Court of India.

'The Supreme Court judgment is the final word on the subject'

Since you spoke of the Constitution let me put it this way. The 7th Schedule Entry 50 allows states to tax minerals subject to limits set by Parliament. Does this not mean that Parliament has the right to withdraw those rights?

Correct, but you forgot one point.

The limits sets by Parliament are not absolute.

They are subject to a Constitutional challenge by the states if Parliament sets limits in an arbitrary fashion.

It goes out of the realm of decision-making by the central government.

Parliament must set the limits and if those limits are manifestly arbitrary, then the Supreme Court steps in and corrects things.

But Entry 49 of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution says that the states have the power to levy taxes on land and building which is contrary to Entry 50.

That is the precise reason this contradiction was resolved by the Supreme Court's judgment in 2024, which gave the states power to levy tax on minerals mined by mining companies.

If somebody thinks this judgment must be changed, then a review petition and a curative petition can be done.

But the Supreme Court judgment is the final word on the subject and it gives the state (governments) substantial rights.

'The Supreme Court judgment was very helpful for the states'

Is federalism a casualty under the MMRD Act?

This Act is against the Constitution and you are going against it.

You cannot over-rule a Supreme Court judgment by making a law.

This government is in the very bad habit of doing so again and again. It has done so many times.

Is it fair that the Supreme Court tells mining companies to pay states retrospectively from April 1, 2005, in instalments over 12 years? That is a long period. Don't you think it is not fair on the mining companies, so therefore the central government brought in this new Act?

Why is it unfair? If payment has to be made, it has to be made.

The only question the Supreme Court decided is, to whom? It is to the state government, which will lead to the strengthening of federalism.

Our Constitution is federal and the 2024 judgment reinforces its federal nature which the central government was trying to usurp.

What about the ease of doing business if you have such taxation practices?

Ease of business has not been touched at all.

The mining companies have to make the payments to the state governments and not the central government. So what is the problem?

And if by mistake some of the payment went to the central government then the central government has to hand over that payment to the state government and reconcile the accounts.

The state finances will strengthen by this move.