Entry 54 of List 1 of the Constitution

Entry 54 of List I, contained in the Union List under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India, relates to the regulation of mines and the development of minerals under the control of the Union. This entry plays a vital role in defining the scope of the Central Government’s legislative authority in the mining sector and in coordinating the economic development of mineral resources across the country. It establishes the constitutional foundation for parliamentary legislation that governs mineral exploration, extraction, and management in India.

Constitutional Provision

Entry 54 of List I reads as follows:

“Regulation of mines and mineral development to the extent to which such regulation and development under the control of the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest.”

This provision empowers Parliament to assume control over the regulation of mines and the development of minerals whenever it considers such control necessary in the public interest. It thus provides for conditional centralisation of legislative authority, allowing the Union to step in and legislate when the coordinated development of mineral resources is required for national objectives such as industrial growth, strategic use, or economic planning.

Constitutional Context and Federal Division of Powers

Under the Seventh Schedule, legislative subjects are distributed between the Union and the States through three lists:

• List I (Union List): Subjects on which only Parliament can legislate.
• List II (State List): Subjects under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of State Legislatures.
• List III (Concurrent List): Subjects on which both Parliament and the State Legislatures can make laws.

While Entry 23 of List II empowers States to legislate on the “regulation of mines and mineral development subject to the provisions of List I with respect to regulation and development under the control of the Union”, Entry 54 of List I enables the Union to override the States’ authority whenever it declares national control to be expedient in the public interest.
Hence, Entry 54 acts as a limiting clause on the States’ powers under Entry 23 of List II and ensures that national mineral policy is not fragmented by state-level differences.

Historical Background

The concept underlying Entry 54 traces its origins to the Government of India Act, 1935, which first provided for the division of legislative powers between the Centre and the Provinces. After Independence, the Constituent Assembly retained this division, recognising the strategic importance of minerals for national development, defence, and industrialisation.
The framers of the Constitution envisaged that mineral resources, being a national asset, required a coordinated approach to ensure their efficient utilisation. Entry 54 was therefore introduced to provide Parliament with overriding control in cases where uniform regulation and development were deemed necessary for the nation as a whole.

Legislative Implementation

The most important law enacted under Entry 54 is the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act). This Act represents the exercise of parliamentary power to assume control over the regulation of mines and mineral development.
The MMDR Act declares that it is expedient in the public interest for the Union to control the regulation of mines and the development of minerals to the extent provided by the Act. Consequently, once such a declaration is made, the legislative competence of the States under Entry 23 of List II is restricted to areas not covered by the Act.
The MMDR Act, along with subsequent amendments, provides a comprehensive framework for:

• Granting reconnaissance, prospecting, and mining leases;
• Prescribing conditions for mining operations;
• Fixing royalties, fees, and dead rent;
• Ensuring environmental protection and sustainable mining practices;
• Regulating the transfer and ownership of mining rights.

Judicial Interpretation

Entry 54 and its interaction with Entry 23 of the State List have been extensively interpreted by the judiciary. The Supreme Court of India has clarified the nature of legislative competence and the doctrine of “occupied field”, which determines when Union legislation supersedes State laws.
In State of Orissa v. M.A. Tulloch & Co. (1964), the Court held that once Parliament had enacted the MMDR Act and declared control over the regulation of mines and mineral development, the entire field became occupied by the Union, leaving no room for States to make inconsistent laws. The Court observed that such a declaration effectively superseded State powers under Entry 23 of List II.
Similarly, in Baijnath Kadio v. State of Bihar (1969) and India Cement Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu (1990), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the MMDR Act, being enacted under Entry 54, had overriding effect. The India Cement case further clarified that even though States could levy certain taxes and fees under Entry 50 of List II (taxes on mineral rights), such levies could not conflict with the provisions of the MMDR Act or with the Union’s control over mineral development.
These judgments underline the principle that Parliament’s control under Entry 54 is exclusive and paramount once exercised, effectively precluding conflicting State legislation.

Relationship with Entry 23 of List II and Entry 50 of List II

• Entry 23 (List II) allows States to legislate on “regulation of mines and mineral development” but subject to the provisions of List I, particularly Entry 54.
• Entry 50 (List II) permits States to impose taxes on mineral rights, but this power is subject to any limitation imposed by Parliament by law relating to mineral development.

Hence, the Union’s exercise of power under Entry 54 restricts the States’ authority under both Entry 23 and Entry 50. This interrelationship reflects the principle of federal supremacy, where national interests in resource regulation prevail over regional concerns when Parliament deems it necessary.

Significance and Rationale

The constitutional rationale behind Entry 54 lies in the national importance of mineral resources. Minerals such as coal, iron ore, bauxite, petroleum, and rare earth elements are integral to industrialisation, energy security, and defence preparedness. Their regulation, therefore, cannot be left solely to individual States, as this might result in inconsistent policies, inefficient exploitation, and regional imbalances.
Entry 54 ensures that:

• The development of minerals follows a uniform national policy.
• Strategic and scarce resources are managed in alignment with national priorities.
• Environmental and sustainability standards are maintained across all States.
• The mining sector contributes effectively to the country’s economic planning and development goals.

Impact on Federal Relations

While Entry 54 strengthens the Union’s control, it has also been a source of contention in Centre–State relations. States often argue that excessive centralisation limits their ability to derive adequate revenue from minerals located within their territories.
Nonetheless, the entry reflects the Indian model of cooperative federalism, where both levels of government share responsibilities—States administer leases and collect royalties, while the Union formulates policies and ensures uniform standards. Periodic reforms, such as the MMDR Amendment Acts of 2015 and 2021, have sought to balance these interests by decentralising certain functions while maintaining Union oversight.

Contemporary Relevance

In modern India, Entry 54 continues to provide the constitutional foundation for policies governing mining and mineral development. With growing emphasis on sustainable mining, renewable energy transitions, and critical minerals (such as lithium and cobalt), the role of the Union in coordinating mineral strategy remains crucial.
Moreover, the increasing focus on environmental safeguards and social responsibility in the extractive industries underscores the continuing importance of a centralised, harmonised approach to mineral governance, as envisaged under Entry 54.