The complete August 2026 current affairs for UPSC CSE — every important story of the month rewritten topic by topic, each with a Prelims pointer and a Mains angle. Filter by subject or page through the compilation.
NCDC (Amendment) Act, 2026
Parliament's passage of the National Co-operative Development Corporation (Amendment) Bill, 2026, which has now received presidential assent, marks the most significant overhaul of the NCDC's governing law since the parent Act of 1962. The NCDC itself is a statutory corporation established in 1963, and since July 2021 it has functioned under the dedicated Ministry of Cooperation — the first time cooperatives got a ministry of their own at the Centre. The amendment widens what this institution is allowed to do, and the changes touch financing, scope and information together.
The headline shift is conceptual: the NCDC's mandate moves from merely financing programmes routed through cooperative societies to actively promoting cooperative development, whether directly or through intermediaries. In practical terms, several long-standing restrictions fall away. The definition of 'foodstuffs' in the Act — until now limited to items such as eggs, milk, meat and vegetables — is expanded to cover processed food, other edible products and any further items the central government notifies, opening the door for food-processing cooperatives. Industrial cooperatives seeking assistance no longer need to be located in rural areas, a recognition that cooperative clusters increasingly sit in peri-urban belts rather than villages alone. Loans and grants can now flow directly to any cooperative society rather than only to national-level and multi-state entities, and the NCDC's equity participation is extended to single-state cooperatives, deepening its reach into the grassroots.
A third pillar is information. The corporation can now collect credit information and share it with the central government, the Reserve Bank of India and banks. Making cooperative credit histories visible is meant to enable risk-based lending to a sector that lenders have historically treated as opaque, and to streamline assistance processes that were previously slowed by information gaps.
The reform is not without friction. Cooperatives sit in the State List — Entry 32 — so a widening central footprint revives the old cooperative-federalism debate: does deeper central financing strengthen grassroots cooperatives, or does it dilute the states' constitutional role? How that tension is managed will decide whether the amendment deepens the cooperative movement or merely centralises it.
| Prelims | - NCDC — statutory corporation under the NCDC Act, 1962 (est. 1963)
- Ministry of Cooperation (July 2021)
- 2026 amendment adds processed food to foodstuffs, drops the rural-location condition, allows direct assistance to any cooperative, enables credit-info sharing with RBI and banks.
|
|---|
| Mains | Cooperative federalism — Entry 32 of the State List versus central financing; whether a wider NCDC reach strengthens cooperatives or dilutes the states' role (GS-2). |
|---|
Report on Panchayati Raj Institutions
The Standing Committee on Rural Development and Panchayati Raj has examined how effectively the 73rd Amendment works, focusing on coordination in the three-tier system. The 1992 amendment gave panchayats constitutional status as institutions of local self-government, with Gram Panchayats, Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads — though Article 243B lets states with up to 20 lakh people skip the middle tier. Three decades on, the committee finds the architecture creaking.
The core diagnosis is fragmentation. The three tiers frequently operate in silos, their geographical boundaries overlapping and sparking disputes over resources. State governments compound the problem by setting up parallel bodies such as development authorities and jal boards that duplicate panchayat functions, while line departments — agriculture, health, education, public works — often bypass elected panchayats entirely. Centrally sponsored schemes arrive with rigid guidelines that leave panchayats no flexibility, and elected representatives report constant power struggles with state-appointed bureaucrats.
It is not all bleak. Financial devolution improved from 39.9 per cent in 2013-14 to 43.9 per cent in 2021-22, though unevenly across states. Twenty-one states and two Union Territories now reserve half their panchayat seats for women, who form nearly half of all elected representatives. The 16th Finance Commission recommended nearly double the grants of the 15th, split 80:10:10 among gram, block and district panchayats, with performance grants tied to raising own-source revenue. Measurement has matured: about 2.60 lakh panchayats submitted validated data under the Panchayat Advancement Index 2.0, reaching 97.3 per cent coverage in participating states and UTs across nine localised Sustainable Development Goal themes, while eGramSwaraj supports planning and accounting and village-to-district development plans knit the tiers together.
The way forward is unglamorous but essential: assign clear roles to each tier and link their plans, strengthen District Planning Committees, improve local tax collection so grant dependence falls, and constitute State Finance Commissions on time. Without that plumbing, constitutional status remains a promise on paper.
| Prelims | - 73rd Amendment (1992)
- three tiers — Gram Panchayat, Panchayat Samiti, Zila Parishad
- Article 243B exception — states with population up to 20 lakh may skip the intermediate tier
- 16th Finance Commission grant split 80:10:10.
|
|---|
| Mains | Local self-governance — devolution of funds, functions and functionaries; parallel bodies versus genuine PRI empowerment (GS-2). |
|---|
Report on the ADR Ecosystem
India's courts are drowning, and the Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice has now reported on whether the lifeboat — alternative dispute resolution — is actually seaworthy. Its report on creating and developing an institutional mechanism for the ADR ecosystem examines arbitration, mediation and conciliation as alternatives to litigation: arbitration where a neutral third party issues a binding award, mediation where a facilitator helps parties reach their own settlement, and conciliation where the neutral actively proposes terms. The verdict is sobering.
The flagship India International Arbitration Centre has handled only about 17 cases in nearly three years since 2022 — a damning statistic for an institution meant to make India a global arbitration hub. Corporate mediation at the NCLT and NCLAT remains fragmented. The legal-aid backbone is starved: the National Legal Services Authority received Rs 550 crore in 2026-27 against a projected need of Rs 1,058.87 crore, with only 29 of its 45 sanctioned posts filled. Pre-institution mediation under the Commercial Courts Act — designed to divert commercial disputes before they reach court — settled only about 4,000 cases in five years, a trickle against the pendency mountain.
The committee's prescription is institutional, not rhetorical. It wants dedicated physical and digital arbitration infrastructure so ADR stops borrowing overburdened courtrooms, and urges the IIAC to do targeted outreach, diversify its arbitrator panel with international experts and update its rules to compete globally. Administrative workforce and capacity constraints need fixing to handle rising caseloads. Crucially, it wants ADR concepts integrated into legal education and early professional training, plus targeted campaigns to shift the corporate and legal default from litigation to institutional arbitration and mediation.
The statutory pillars already exist — the Mediation Act of 2023, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 and the Legal Services Authorities Act of 1987. What is missing is the ecosystem around them: infrastructure, people, awareness and a culture that sees settlement as first resort rather than surrender. Until that changes, ADR will remain a well-legislated afterthought.
| Prelims | - ADR — arbitration (binding), mediation (voluntary), conciliation
- Mediation Act, 2023
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
- IIAC — about 17 cases in three years
- NALSA funding gap.
|
|---|
| Mains | Judicial backlog and access to justice — designing institutions that divert disputes from courts (GS-2). |
|---|
Report on the Tribunal System
The same parliamentary standing committee turned its lens on tribunals — the quasi-judicial bodies meant to take technical disputes out of regular courts — and found a system straining at every joint. Its review covered five tribunals: the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the Railway Claims Tribunal, the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal, the National Green Tribunal and the National Company Law Tribunal. The details paint a picture of institutional neglect.
Vacancies hollow out adjudicatory capacity: 27 of 126 member posts lay vacant in the ITAT, while the NGT functioned with just 5 judicial and 6 expert members against a statutory minimum of 10 each. The workforce is precarious — 95 per cent of the NCLT's staff is contractual — and the physical and digital infrastructure is threadbare: TDSAT operates from rented hotel rooms, the NGT has no dedicated IT section, and the NCLT's e-court portal has outlived its lifecycle. Independence is compromised where it matters most: the Railway Claims Tribunal depends financially on the Railway Ministry, the very entity it adjudicates against. Jurisdictional gaps persist too, with TDSAT excluding individual consumer complaints from its ambit.
Running parallel to this diagnosis, Parliament passed the Tribunals Reforms Bill in August 2026, repealing the 2021 Act. Its centrepiece is a National Tribunals Commission — chaired by a former Supreme Court judge or High Court Chief Justice, with two judicial and two technical members — to run selections through a search-cum-selection committee, review tribunal performance and oversee inquiries into members' conduct. Chairpersons and members get five-year terms or serve till a specified age, whichever is earlier. The stated aim is to reduce executive discretion, professionalise administration and give effect to the principles the Supreme Court laid down in its Madras Bar Association judgments.
The committee's own recommendations are more operational: begin appointments well before retirements so vacancies never crater capacity, build permanent cadres instead of contractual stopgaps, and secure genuine financial independence. The test of the new law will be whether it delivers that plumbing — or merely rearranges the letterhead.
| Prelims | - Five tribunals reviewed — ITAT, RCT, TDSAT, NGT, NCLT
- NGT needs a minimum of 10 judicial and 10 expert members
- tribunals cut court load and bring subject expertise.
|
|---|
| Mains | Tribunalisation of justice — independence, vacancies and the balance between expertise and judicial oversight (GS-2). |
|---|
Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 2026
The President's assent to the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026 has raised the court's sanctioned strength from 33 to 37 judges, excluding the Chief Justice of India. The amendment modifies the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act of 1956, and it flows directly from Article 124(1) of the Constitution, which empowers Parliament to determine the number of Supreme Court judges by law. The expansion is best read against the court's own history: when the Supreme Court came into being in 1950, it comprised just 8 judges including the CJI, and every subsequent increase has been Parliament's response to a docket that keeps outgrowing the bench.
Running alongside the numbers debate, attention has returned to a quieter constitutional curiosity — Article 124(3)'s distinguished-jurist route to the Supreme Court. A sitting Supreme Court judge recently described it as an unused mandate of the Constitution. The provision lays down three alternative qualifications: an Indian citizen who has been a High Court judge for five years, a High Court advocate for ten years, or, in the President's opinion, a distinguished jurist. The third door has never been opened. The Constitution nowhere defines who counts as a distinguished jurist, and no appointment has ever been made through this route — a striking contrast with the detailed, convention-bound processes that govern the other two.
The asymmetry is deliberate in one respect: the criteria for High Court judges do not include distinguished jurists at all, so the provision is unique to the apex court. Whether the route stays theoretical or is finally used will test how the collegium system, executive concurrence and constitutional text interact. For now, the 2026 amendment answers the quantitative question — more judges for more cases — while the qualitative question of who may become a judge through the Constitution's least-travelled path remains open.
| Prelims | - SC strength now 37 judges plus the CJI
- Article 124(1) — Parliament fixes judge numbers
- Article 124(3) — distinguished-jurist route never used
- original strength 8 in 1950.
|
|---|
| Mains | Judicial capacity versus pendency; widening the pool for apex appointments (GS-2). |
|---|
High Court Bench in Ladakh
The Union Cabinet has approved a bench of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh to sit in Ladakh, bringing constitutional justice physically closer to litigants in one of India's most remote Union Territories. The legal route is Section 51 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, under which the President may establish a permanent bench of a High Court after consulting the Governor and the High Court's Chief Justice. It is a well-travelled path: the Bombay High Court sits in benches at Nagpur, Aurangabad and Panaji, and the Allahabad High Court at Lucknow, each created to spare litigants the journey to the principal seat.
The move sits inside a larger constitutional map. Article 214 provides for High Courts in states, while Article 241 deals with High Courts for Union Territories, and India today has 25 High Courts — several of them serving more than one state or Union Territory. The Punjab and Haryana High Court covers two states plus Chandigarh; the Bombay High Court stretches across Maharashtra, Goa and Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu; the Gauhati High Court serves Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh; Madras covers Tamil Nadu and Puducherry; Kerala covers Kerala and Lakshadweep; and Calcutta covers West Bengal and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands.
For Ladakh, the bench is about access as much as symbolism. Since the 2019 reorganisation, the region's litigants have depended on a court whose principal seat lies across formidable terrain in Jammu and Kashmir. A permanent bench in Ladakh shortens that distance — literally and institutionally — and signals that the reorganisation's administrative logic is being completed with judicial infrastructure. The consultation requirements in Section 51 also preserve the balance the provision was designed for: executive initiative checked by judicial concurrence.
| Prelims | - Section 51, States Reorganisation Act, 1956 — President sets up HC benches
- 25 High Courts in India
- Article 214 (HCs for states), Article 241 (HCs for UTs).
|
|---|
| Mains | Access to justice in remote regions; the governance architecture of Union Territories (GS-2). |
|---|
Kerala to Keralam: Article 3 in Action
The President's assent to the Kerala (Alteration of Name) Bill, 2026 has formally changed the state's name to Keralam, closing a process the state Assembly set in motion with a resolution in 2024. The episode is a textbook illustration of Article 3 of the Constitution in action — and of how carefully that article balances parliamentary supremacy with federal comity — the mutual respect the Constitution expects between the Union and the states.
Article 3 empowers Parliament to form a new state or to alter a state's area, boundaries or name. The procedure has built-in safeguards that are real but limited. A Bill under Article 3 requires the President's recommendation before introduction, and the President must refer it to the concerned state legislature for its views within a stipulated period. But those views are not binding on Parliament — as the 2024 Kerala resolution demonstrated, the Union can proceed regardless. And crucially, the Bill passes by simple majority; it is not treated as a constitutional amendment under Article 368, so it does not need the special majorities or ratification that amendments demand.
The outer limit of this power was set long ago. In the Berubari Union case of 1960, the Supreme Court held that Article 3 does not permit the cession of Indian territory to another country — Parliament can reorganise what is India's, but cannot give Indian territory away under this provision. That boundary matters because Article 3 is otherwise one of the most sweeping powers in the constitutional scheme.
The renaming itself carries cultural weight: Keralam is the state's name in Malayalam, and the change aligns the constitutional text with the name its people actually use. But for the UPSC aspirant, the durable lesson is procedural — the resolution that is not binding, the recommendation that is mandatory, the majority that is simple, and the cession that is forbidden.
| Prelims | - Kerala becomes Keralam under Article 3 — simple majority, not Article 368
- state legislature's views not binding
- Berubari Union (1960) — no cession of territory under Article 3.
|
|---|
| Mains | Article 3 and federalism — Parliament's power over state identity versus state consent (GS-2). |
|---|
UPI Completes 10 Years
Ten years after its public rollout on 25 August 2016, the Unified Payments Interface has grown from an experiment into the backbone of India's retail payments — and arguably the world's most successful real-time payment system. The journey began with a pilot in April 2016 involving 21 banks, followed by the launch of BHIM in December 2016, the mobile app built on UPI by the National Payments Corporation of India. Architecturally, UPI rides on IMPS infrastructure and is regulated by the Reserve Bank of India under the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007, enabling instant, interoperable, round-the-clock transfers between bank accounts through a mobile device, without needing account details, for both person-to-person and person-to-merchant payments.
The numbers tell the scale story. UPI grew from about 2 crore transactions in FY17 to 24,162 crore transactions in FY26, and today handles roughly 49 per cent of the world's real-time payment volume — a scale the IMF recognised in 2025. The decade's milestones trace a deliberate expansion of use cases: UPI 2.0 added features like overdraft support, AutoPay brought recurring payments, 123PAY extended access to feature-phone users, Lite enabled small-value offline transactions, credit cards were integrated into the rail, and the system began expanding abroad, starting with Bhutan.
UPI's success sits inside the wider financial-inclusion push — Jan Dhan accounts, RuPay cards, the Aadhaar-enabled Payment System, India Post Payments Bank, and RBI's branch norms requiring a quarter of new branches in unbanked rural areas all fed users into the digital rail. In August 2026 the Finance Ministry settled the running debate over pricing, clarifying that the vast majority of UPI transactions will remain free for merchants, with any merchant discount rate applied only on a threshold basis. The policy choice preserves the zero-cost network effect that made UPI ubiquitous — while leaving the door open, eventually, for the system to price its heaviest commercial users.
| Prelims | - UPI — built by NPCI on IMPS, regulated by RBI under the PSS Act, 2007
- public launch August 2016
- about 49% of global real-time payment volume
- first international expansion to Bhutan.
|
|---|
| Mains | Digital Public Infrastructure as a growth model; the sustainability of zero-MDR payments (GS-3). |
|---|
CBDC-based Direct Benefit Transfer
India's retail central bank digital currency has been used for direct benefit transfer for the first time, with food subsidies under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Anna Yojana disbursed as e-rupee tokens in Chandigarh and Dadra and Nagar Haveli — the first territories in the country to operationalise food-subsidy transfer this way. The pilot moves the digital rupee from a payments experiment into the welfare architecture, testing whether programmable money can deliver subsidies better than bank transfers.
CBDC is a tokenised digital version of the Indian rupee issued by the Reserve Bank of India — the Finance Act of 2022 amended the RBI Act, 1934 to include currency in digital form. It comes in wholesale and retail types, and is emphatically not a cryptocurrency: no mining, no algorithmic issuance, no market-determined value. It is legal tender at par with physical cash.
PMGKAY food subsidies flow directly into beneficiaries' CBDC wallets instead of bank accounts, for spending on foodgrains at empanelled merchants through secure, traceable, real-time payments. The tokens are purpose-bound — redeemable only against eligible foodgrains at listed outlets — which makes diversion structurally difficult. A Maharashtra pilot points to a second dividend: programmable CBDC delivering drip-irrigation subsidy without the reimbursement delays of conventional pipelines. More broadly, the experiment shows how CBDC could integrate with welfare schemes under India's Digital Public Infrastructure framework.
The caution flags are specific. Digital exclusion is real: biometric failures, device loss and app updates can lock out the vulnerable users DBT serves. A breach of wallet infrastructure could disrupt transactions at scale, and the digital trail raises privacy and surveillance concerns. Adoption is weak: retail digital-rupee circulation fell about 24 per cent between March 2025 and March 2026 despite expanded pilots. The way forward is to keep low-value transactions anonymous at the individual level while retaining aggregate audit data, make tokens portable for migrant households and non-lapsing, provide offline and assisted-wallet options, and scale gradually.
| Prelims | - CBDC — RBI-issued tokenised digital rupee, legal tender, not a cryptocurrency
- Finance Act, 2022 amended the RBI Act, 1934
- first CBDC-DBT under PMGKAY in Chandigarh and Dadra and Nagar Haveli
- purpose-bound tokens.
|
|---|
| Mains | Digital welfare delivery — programmability and transparency versus privacy and exclusion risks (GS-2/GS-3). |
|---|
NITI Aayog: India as a Manufacturing Hub
NITI Aayog's report titled 'Key Sectors to Position India as a Global Manufacturing Hub' is the think tank's most detailed attempt yet to answer a hard question: where exactly can India win in manufacturing, and what is stopping it? The report analyses four sectors in depth — chemicals, textiles, telecom equipment and solar photovoltaics — and will be followed by reports on eight more sectors. Together, the twelve are meant to anchor India's manufacturing ambitions and strengthen its position in global value chains.
The sectoral diagnosis is candid about gaps. In chemicals, India holds 3 to 3.5 per cent of the global market and ranks sixth worldwide, but imports 70 to 80 per cent of its high-value inputs — scale without depth. Textiles contribute about 2 per cent of GDP and 11 per cent of manufacturing value added, yet the industry remains fragmented in weaving and heavily cotton-dependent, limiting its move up the value chain into synthetics and technical textiles. Telecom equipment presents the starkest paradox: India is the world's second-largest telecom market, but localisation in equipment manufacturing sits below 15 per cent, leaving the digital backbone import-dependent. Solar PV shows what targeted policy can do and where it stops: 106 GW of solar capacity was installed by March 2025, but polysilicon — the foundational input — remains almost entirely imported.
The recommendations are sector-specific rather than slogan-driven. For chemicals, coal gasification to produce domestic feedstock; for textiles, PM MITRA parks to consolidate fragmented weaving and processing; for telecom, localisation-linked incentives that reward domestic value addition; for solar, extending the approved-models list to wafers to push manufacturing upstream of modules.
The report's real contribution is method: instead of a single manufacturing policy, twelve deep sectoral playbooks sequenced over time. If the follow-up reports maintain this granularity — and if recommendations survive contact with implementation — the exercise could give India's industrial policy something it has often lacked: a prioritised, evidence-based to-do list rather than a vision statement.
| Prelims | - Four sectors — chemicals (6th globally), textiles, telecom equipment, solar PV
- India the world's 2nd-largest telecom market
- 106 GW solar by March 2025.
|
|---|
| Mains | Manufacturing competitiveness — import dependence, duty inversion and integration into global value chains (GS-3). |
|---|
MSME Development (Amendment) Act, 2026
Parliament's passage of the MSME Development (Amendment) Bill, 2026, now with presidential assent, rewrites the governing law for the sector that the Economic Survey calls India's second-largest employer. The amendment updates the MSMED Act of 2006, and its significance starts with the sheer weight of the sector: micro, small and medium enterprises account for 31.1 per cent of GDP, 35.4 per cent of manufacturing output and 48.58 per cent of exports, employing over 40 crore people — second only to agriculture as a source of jobs.
The definitional change is the foundation. Enterprises will now be classified using both investment and turnover criteria, replacing a framework that struggled to capture the reality of modern small firms, where asset-light businesses can have large turnovers and vice versa. Classification determines everything downstream — which schemes an enterprise can access, what compliance applies, what support it gets — so getting the metric right matters.
On formalisation, the amendment creates a national digital platform for free registration, lowering the cost of entering the formal economy. Formalisation is the gateway to credit, public procurement preferences and scheme benefits, and a free, unified digital doorway should pull more of the vast informal tail of micro-enterprises into the system.
The most commercially consequential provisions attack the sector's chronic wound: delayed payments. All central public-sector enterprises will be required to settle MSME invoices through the TReDS platform, forcing large buyers onto a transparent receivables-discounting rail. States are enabled to set up additional facilitation councils for payment disputes, expanding adjudicatory capacity. And delayed-payment disputes will now be routed through mediation before arbitration — a sequencing designed to deliver faster, cheaper resolution, since arbitration, for all its virtues, remains slow and expensive for small claimants.
Taken together, the amendment treats the MSME problem as three problems: definition, formalisation and cash flow. Whether it moves the needle will depend on implementation — TReDS compliance by CPSEs, the actual functioning of new facilitation councils, and whether mediation genuinely shortens the dispute cycle.
| Prelims | - MSMEs — 31.1% of GDP, 35.4% of manufacturing, 48.58% of exports, 40+ crore jobs
- CPSEs must settle MSME invoices via TReDS
- classification by investment plus turnover.
|
|---|
| Mains | Delayed payments as the binding constraint on MSMEs; formalisation through digital platforms (GS-3). |
|---|
MMDR Amendment Act, 2026
The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026, which received presidential assent, redraws the fiscal boundary between the Centre and the states in the mining sector. Amending the MMDR Act of 1957 — the law that empowers the central government to control the regulation of mines and the development of minerals — the amendment bars state governments from imposing any tax, cess or other levy on mineral rights or mineral-bearing land, except in accordance with conditions prescribed by the Centre. A new Section 9D operationalises the bar, and unrecovered state levies already imposed stand retrospectively invalidated.
The mechanics are precise. Mineral-bearing land is defined as any land with mineral contents meeting parameters the central government notifies under rules, bringing the definitional power to Delhi. The restriction covers any levy — tax, cess or otherwise — on mineral rights or mineral-bearing lands, whether computed on mineral quantity, mineral value, royalty or any other basis. What does not change is equally important: royalty, auction premium, District Mineral Funds and state control over minor minerals all remain untouched, so the amendment targets state taxation power, not the existing royalty regime.
The Centre's case is economic integration. A uniform national mineral market, it argues, removes the cascading, jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction levies that fragment the sector, and the change supports the National Critical Mineral Mission's push for secure domestic supply chains. Mineral-rich states — Jharkhand and Odisha most vocally — see it as a fiscal assault: state legislatures tax land under Entry 18 and Entry 49 of the State List, and the Supreme Court held in 2024 that mineral-bearing land falls within 'lands' under Entry 49, entitling states to tax it with reference to mineral output.
The amendment thus sets up a direct collision between a parliamentary statute and a Supreme Court reading of the Seventh Schedule. How that collision resolves — through litigation, negotiation or a political settlement — will shape not just mining economics but the broader balance of fiscal federalism.
| Prelims | - MMDR Act, 1957
- 2026 amendment — new Section 9D bars state levies on mineral rights and mineral-bearing land
- royalty, auction premium and DMF unchanged
- states tax land under the State List.
|
|---|
| Mains | Fiscal federalism — Parliament's power to limit state taxation of mineral rights (GS-2/GS-3). |
|---|
