Bhubaneswar: The war of words between ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and opposition Biju Janata Dal (BJD) over MMDR Amendment intensified in Odisha on Friday with leaders of the two parties making claims and counter-claims about its impact on the state.
While BJP leader and former Rajya Sabha MP Amar Patnaik claimed that the recent amendments to the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act will not cause revenue loss for Odisha, BJD spokesperson Lenin Mohanty stuck to his party’s views and challenged for former parliamentarian to present evidence to back his argument.
Rejecting BJD’s allegations that the changes would weaken the powers of states or cause revenue losses to Odisha, Patnaik told reporters that the main objective of the amendment was to bring uniformity in mining-related rules across states. Claims that the amendment has taken away the powers of state governments were misleading, he said.
Stating that states would continue to have the power to impose taxes, but within specified conditions and limits, the BJP leader said the earlier system did not clearly prescribe uniform limits on how much or when states could impose such taxes, leading to differences across states.
“If different states impose different taxes, the mining industry cannot remain sustainable,” he said, adding that excessive taxation could increase the burden on mining companies and discourage investment.
Patnaik claimed that the amendment would instead benefit the mining sector by creating a more predictable regulatory environment and attracting greater investment. Citing research, Patnaik claimed that the changes could increase revenue by around 40 per cent.
Rejecting the BJD’s claim that Odisha could have received around Rs 12,000 crore but would now suffer a loss, the former MP said there would be no reduction in the state’s existing revenue from mining royalty and the District Mineral Foundation (DMF). He claimed that 90 per cent of DMF funds would continue to come to Odisha.
The BJP leader also targeted the previous BJD government over the utilisation of DMF funds, citing observations in the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) report. He alleged that large-scale irregularities had taken place in the use of DMF funds and money meant for specific areas and purposes had been spent elsewhere in violation of rules.
The BJP leader also questioned the BJD’s criticism of the MMDR amendments, pointing to changes made to the mining law in 2015. He said amendments to Sections 10B and 11 introduced the e-auction system for mining blocks.
Before the introduction of e-auctions, mining blocks were allocated without adequate transparency. He referred to earlier findings of the CAG and the Shah Commission, which had estimated losses of around Rs 60,000 crore and Rs 59,000 crore respectively in Odisha’s mining sector. He also said the Shah Commission had recommended a CBI investigation, he said.
The BJP leader further claimed that the introduction of the e-auction system in 2015 resulted in a sharp rise in Odisha’s mining revenue. According to him, mining revenue increased from around Rs 3,300 crore to Rs 53,000 crore, representing an 861 per cent increase.
He accused the BJD, which governed Odisha for 24 years, of creating “misleading and confusing” narratives over the MMDR amendments.
Patnaik claimed that the amendments would bring long-term benefits to Odisha by improving transparency, encouraging investment and strengthening the mining sector.
He alleged that the previous government had failed to undertake adequate measures for the long-term development of the mining sector and instead treated it as a source of revenue. He said Odisha’s share of mining royalty and DMF revenue would remain protected.
Rejecting the contention made by Patnaik in favour of MMDR Amendment Act, Lenin Mohandy termed the BJP leader’s views as “baseless & anti-Odisha “.
Mohanty cited the argument earlier given by Odisha before the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court and said Amar Patnaik is in a habit of party-hopping. With the hope of getting some benefit, Patnaik is speaking in favour of the MMRD Amendment Act 2026, he claimed, challenging Patnaik to show evidence in support of his argument.
