HC strikes down Kerala Vesting of Minerals Act as unconstitutional
The Kerala High Court declared the Kerala Minerals (Vesting of Rights) Act, 2021 unconstitutional
The 2021 law had vested all mineral rights beneath privately owned "jenmom" lands in the Malabar region with the State government
Landowners had challenged the law after the State issued notices demanding royalty payments on minerals they extracted from their own land
A Division Bench held that the Act did not qualify as a valid law authorising deprivation of property, as it contained no provision for compensating landowners whose mineral rights were being taken over
The ruling came on appeals against an earlier single-judge order that had upheld the Act's validity
Article 300A — Right to Property
Article 300A provides that no person shall be deprived of their property save by authority of law. Property is no longer a Fundamental Right (it was removed from Part III by the 44th Amendment, 1978) but survives as a constitutional right under Part XII, enforceable through ordinary courts rather than a writ for violation of Fundamental Rights alone.
Key Details
- Inserted by the Constitution (44th Amendment) Act, 1978, which also repealed Articles 19(1)(f) and 31 (property as a Fundamental Right)
- "Authority of law" under Article 300A has been judicially interpreted to require a law that is fair, reasonable, and — where property is compulsorily taken — provides for compensation; arbitrary deprivation without compensation fails this test
- The Supreme Court has reiterated in multiple cases (e.g., K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, 2011) that Article 300A embodies principles of due process even though it is not a Fundamental Right
The Kerala High Court held that the 2021 Act's failure to provide any compensation mechanism for landowners' mineral rights made it fall short of a valid "law" under Article 300A, rendering the vesting unconstitutional.
Legislative Competence — Entry 23 (State List) and Entry 54 (Union List)
Entry 23 of the State List gives states power to regulate mines and mineral development, but this is expressly "subject to the provisions of List I" — specifically Entry 54 of the Union List, which allows Parliament to regulate mines and minerals where it declares such regulation expedient in the public interest.
Key Details
- Entry 54, Union List: "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"
- Parliament exercised this power through the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act), which occupies the field of mineral regulation and development
- Once such a Parliamentary declaration is made under Entry 54, State legislative competence under Entry 23 is correspondingly restricted to matters not covered by the central law
- A 2024 nine-judge Supreme Court bench (Mineral Area Development Authority v. Steel Authority of India) clarified that states retain the power to tax mineral rights and mineral-bearing lands, distinguishing "taxation" from "regulation," even though the MMDR Act occupies the regulatory field
Beyond the compensation issue, the case also raises the question of whether a State law vesting ownership of mineral rights conflicts with the Union's occupied field of mineral regulation and development under the MMDR Act — a live federalism question the courts continue to refine.
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957
The MMDR Act is the central legislation governing mineral concessions, mining leases, and royalty in India, enacted under Entry 54 of the Union List.
Key Details
- Governs grant of prospecting licences and mining leases, and prescribes royalty rates for minerals (other than minor minerals, which states regulate)
- States can levy royalty as prescribed under the Act but cannot independently vest private mineral rights without a valid compensatory legal framework
- The distinction between "royalty" (a contractual/statutory payment for extraction rights) and "tax" was central to the 2024 nine-judge ruling, which held royalty is not a tax
The State's attempt to collect royalty from private landowners under the 2021 Act was one of the triggers for the legal challenge, since the Act sought to convert private mineral ownership into State ownership without following due compensatory process.
- Kerala Minerals (Vesting of Rights) Act enacted: 2021
- Region affected: Malabar (jenmom lands — private landholdings originating from historical Malabar land tenure)
- Constitutional provision cited: Article 300A (right to property)
- Ruling bench: Division Bench of the Kerala High Court
- Article 300A inserted by: 44th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1978 (replacing erstwhile Article 31)
- Relevant Union List entry: Entry 54; relevant State List entry: Entry 23
- Central legislation governing minerals: Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957