{"id":328099,"date":"2024-08-05T18:00:47","date_gmt":"2024-08-05T12:30:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=328099"},"modified":"2024-08-07T14:37:12","modified_gmt":"2024-08-07T09:07:12","slug":"justice-bv-nagarathna-dissent-sc-verdict-royalty-as-tax-states-power-to-levy-cess-on-minera-rights","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/05\/justice-bv-nagarathna-dissent-sc-verdict-royalty-as-tax-states-power-to-levy-cess-on-minera-rights\/","title":{"rendered":"Read Justice BV Nagarathna\u2019s sole dissent in SC\u2019s verdict on \u2018royalty\u2019 as tax and States power to levy cess on mineral rights"},"content":{"rendered":"<div style=\"text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;\">\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Supreme Court:<\/span> In a matter concerning the distribution of legislative powers between the Union and the States on the taxation of mineral rights, the Nine Judge Constitution Bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud, CJI, Hrishikesh Roy, Abhay S Oka, BV Nagarathna, JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Ujjal Bhuyan, Satish Chandra Sharma and Augustine George Masih JJ. has held that royalty paid by mining operators to the Central government is not a tax and that States have the power to levy cesses on mining and mineral-use activities. Whereas, Justice BV Nagarathna, gave a dissenting opinion, she held that:<\/p>\n<ul style=\"list-style-type: disc;\">\n<li>\n<p>The concept of royalty is being considered from the perspective of Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001572446\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">9<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002845655\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">MMDR Act, 1957<\/a> and not from any other context. Thus, viewed from the statutory framework of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002845655\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">MMDR Act, 1957<\/a> passed by the Parliament on the strength of Entry 54 &#8212; List I of the Seventh Schedule of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726967\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Constitution of India<\/a> and having regard to Section 2 of the said Act, royalty is in the nature of a &#8216;tax&#8217; or an &#8216;exaction&#8217;.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p>Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001572446\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">9<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002845655\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">MMDR Act, 1957<\/a> is a limitation within the meaning of Entry 50 &#8212; List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution and the States have no legislative competence to levy any other tax, impost or fee on the exercise of mineral rights. Entry 49 &#8212; List II is also not applicable to mineral bearing lands.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\"><span style=\"font-style: italic;\">India Cement Ltd<\/span>. v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">State of T.N.<\/span>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/n8xUxutR\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">(1990) 1 SCC 12<\/a> has been correctly decided by a seven-judge Bench of this Court and that the majority judgment in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">State of W.B.<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Kesoram Industries Ltd.<\/span>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/bBd3mx3w\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">(2004) 10 SCC 201<\/a>, is incorrect and therefore, ought to be overruled.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Issues, Analysis and Decision:<\/p>\n<p style=\"font-weight: bold;\">What is the true nature of royalty determined under Section 9 read with Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001572407\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">15(1)<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002845655\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">MMDR Act<\/a>? Is royalty in the nature of tax?<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Justice BV Nagarathna said that the true nature of royalty determined under Section 9 read with Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001572407\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">15(1)<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002845655\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">MMDR Act, 1957<\/a> is that it is in the nature of a tax coming within the scope and ambit of Article <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001575203\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">366(28)<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726967\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Constitution<\/a> which defines taxation to include the imposition of any tax or impost, whether general or local or special and the word &#8220;tax&#8221; is to be construed accordingly.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Thus, Justice Nagarathna held that royalty is a tax or an exaction. It is not merely a contractual payment but a statutory levy under Section 9 of the Act (Section 9A relating to dead rent). She also added that liability to pay royalty does not arise purely out of the contractual conditions of a binding lease. The payment of royalty to the Government is a tax in view of Entry 50 &#8211; List II being subject to any limitations imposed by Parliament by law in the context of Entry 54 &#8211; List I read with Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001572415\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">2<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002845655\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">MMDR Act, 1957<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Justice Nagarathna said that the majority decision in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">State of West Bengal<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Kesoram Industries Ltd<\/span>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/bBd3mx3w\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">(2004) 10 SCC 201<\/a> is a serious departure from the law laid down by the seven judge Bench in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">India Cement Ltd.<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">State of T.N.<\/span>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/n8xUxutR\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">(1990) 1 SCC 12<\/a>; which was wholly unwarranted and therefore, it is liable to be overruled and is overruled to the extent of that royalty is not a tax.<\/p>\n<p style=\"font-weight: bold;\">What is the scope of Entry 50 &#8211; List II of the Seventh Schedule? What is the ambit of the limitations imposable by Parliament in exercise of its legislative powers under Entry 54 &#8211; List I? Does Section 9, or any other provision of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002845655\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">MMDR Act<\/a>, contain any limitation with respect to the field in Entry 50 &#8211; List II?<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Justice Nagarathna said that Entry 50 &#8211; List II of the Seventh Schedule is a taxation Entry which deals with taxes on mineral rights. But this Entry is subject to any limitations imposed by Parliament by law relating to mineral development. The use of the word &#8220;any&#8221; means the limitation could be in any form which can be imposed only by the Parliament by law relating to mineral development.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">She said that in view of the use of the expression &#8220;any limitations&#8221;, it must be given the widest possible meaning to include a limitation in the form of Sections 9 and 9A, 25 or any other provision of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002845655\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">MMDR Act, 1957<\/a> and Rules made thereunder which act as a limitation to Entry 50 &#8211; List II.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Thus, Justice BV Nagarathna held that Sections <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001572446\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">9<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001572447\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">9-A<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001572426\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">25<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002845655\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">MMDR Act, 1957<\/a> denude or limit the scope of Entry 50 &#8211; List II.<\/p>\n<p style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Whether the expression &#8220;subject to any limitations imposed by Parliament by law relating to mineral development&#8221; in Entry 50 &#8211; List II pro tanto subjects the Entry to Entry 54 &#8211; List I, which is a non-taxing general Entry? Consequently, is there any departure from the general scheme of distribution of legislative powers as enunciated in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">M.P. V. Sundararamier &amp; Co.<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">State of Andhra Pradesh<\/span>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/23z5A6cu\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">(1958) 9 STC 298<\/a> ?<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Justice Nagarathna stated that the expression &#8220;subject to any limitations imposed by Parliament by law relating to mineral development&#8221; in Entry 50 &#8211; List II pro tanto subjects the Entry to Entry 54 &#8211; List I. The use of the expression &#8220;any limitations&#8221; would mean that the taxing Entry would be subject to a non-taxing or general Entry such as in Entry 54 &#8211; List I which could also be termed as a regulatory Entry. She added that there is a departure from the general scheme of distribution of legislative powers as enumerated in MPV Sundararamier (supra) insofar as Entry 50 &#8211; List II read with Entry 54 &#8211; List I is concerned which is unique to Entry 50 &#8212; List II. This is considering the significance of Entry 54 &#8212; List I which also overrides Entry 23 &#8212; List II.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Justice Nagarathna remarked that Entry 50 &#8211; List II is a unique Entry because it is the only taxation Entry in Lists I and II where the taxing power of a State legislature has been subjected to &#8220;any limitations imposed by Parliament by law relating to mineral development&#8221;. She added that the dictum in M. P. V. Sundararamier (supra) has not been discussed on Entry 50 &#8212; List II and hence the said decision has no bearing as such on the present controversy.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">She said that the conclusion that &#8216;royalty&#8217; is a &#8216;tax&#8217; is the only exception to the position of law laid down in MPV Sundararamier (supra). Further, she concurred with the majority that the scope of expression &#8220;any limitations&#8221; in Entry 50 &#8211; List II is wide enough to include the imposition of restrictions, conditions, principles as well as a prohibition by Parliament by law.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Thus, Justice Nagarathna viewed that the judgments in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">India Cement Ltd.<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">State of T.N.<\/span>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/n8xUxutR\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">(1990) 1 SCC 12<\/a>; <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Orissa Cement Ltd.<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">State of Orissa<\/span>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/7zDtC898\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">1991 Supp (1) SCC 430<\/a>; <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">State of M.P.<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Mahalaxmi Fabric Mills Ltd.<\/span>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/L3kpCDTQ\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">1995 Supp (1) SCC 642<\/a>; <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Saurashtra Cement &amp; Chemical Industries Ltd.<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Union of India<\/span>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/h25Qi3lh\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">(2001) 1 SCC 91<\/a>; <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">State of Orissa<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd.<\/span>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/3915WrYV\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">1995 Supp (2) SCC 686<\/a> and <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">P. Kannadasan<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">State of T.N.<\/span>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/PN3NVPO0\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">(1996) 5 SCC 670<\/a> excluding to the extent overruled in Tata Iron and Steel, and Tata Iron and Steel are correct and therefore are binding precedent and cannot be overruled. Per Contra, Justice Nagarathna overruled the majority judgment in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">State of West Bengal<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Kesoram Industries Ltd.<\/span>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/bBd3mx3w\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">(2004) 10 SCC 201<\/a> to the extent it holds that royalty is not a tax.<\/p>\n<p style=\"font-weight: bold;\">What is the scope of Entry 49 &#8211; List II and whether it covers a tax which involves a measure based on the value of the produce of land? Would the constitutional position be any different qua mining land on account of Entry 50 &#8211; List II read with Entry 54 &#8211; List I?<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Justice Nagarathna said that Entry 49 &#8211; List II deals with taxation of lands and buildings. It does not cover taxes on mineral bearing lands. The constitutional position is different qua mineral bearing lands on account of Entry 50 &#8211; List II read with Entry 54 &#8211; List I and Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001572415\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">2<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002845655\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">MMDR Act, 1957<\/a>. Thus, any imposition based on royalty by a State Legislature or involving royalty as a measure of the value of the minerals extracted from the land is impermissible.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">She said that the State legislatures have legislative competence under Article 246 read with Entry 49 &#8211; List II to tax lands and buildings but not lands which comprise of mines and quarries or have mineral deposits as mineral bearing lands do not fall within the description of lands (under Entry 49 &#8211; List II). Similarly, States can tax such mineral bearing lands which are not covered within the scope of <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002845655\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">MMDR Act, 1957<\/a> i.e., minor minerals, under Entry 50 &#8212; List II and not under Entry 49 &#8212; List II as tax on exercise of mineral rights. Thus, mineral bearing lands cannot be taxed under Entry 49 &#8212; List II.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Thus, she held that taxes on lands and buildings under Entry 49 &#8211; List II contemplates a tax levied directly on the land as a unit having a defined relationship with the land and does not include mineral bearing lands within its scope.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Further, she added that the yield of mineral bearing lands, in terms of quantity of mineral produced or royalty paid cannot also be used as a measure to tax such lands under Entry 49 &#8211; List II.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">In view of the declaration under Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001572415\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">2<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002845655\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">MMDR Act, 1957<\/a> made in terms of Entry 54 &#8211; List I and to the extent of the provisions of the said Act, Justice Nagarathna held that the State legislature is denuded of its powers under Enry 50 &#8211; List II.<\/p>\n<p style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Whether Entry 50 &#8211; List II is a specific Entry in relation to Entry 49 &#8211; List II, and would consequently subtract mining land from the scope of Entry 49 &#8211; List II?<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Affirming, Justice Nagarathna held that having regard to Entry 50 &#8211; List II to be read with Entry 54 &#8211; List I and Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001572415\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">2<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002845655\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">MMDR Act, 1957<\/a>, Entry 50 &#8211; List II is a specific Entry in relation to Entry 49 &#8211; List II and would consequently subtract mining lands from the scope of Entry 49 &#8211; II.<\/p>\n<p style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Also read:<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt;\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/29\/supreme-court-verdict-royalty-as-tax-states-power-to-levy-cess-on-mining-mineral-use-activities\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Explained | Supreme Court&#8217;s verdict on &#8216;royalty&#8217; as tax and States power to levy cess on mining and mineral-use activities<\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; margin-bottom: 3%;\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/30\/supreme-court-ruling-parliament-power-impose-limitations-state-levy-tax-on-mineral-rights\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Supreme Court on Parliament&#8217;s power to impose limitations on State to levy tax on mineral rights<\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">[<span style=\"font-weight: bold; color: #632423;\">Mineral Area Development Authority v. Steel Authority of India, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/Kw2ZgwrI\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">2024 SCC OnLine SC 1796<\/a>, decided on 25-07-2024<\/span>]<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 18pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #000080;\">*Judgment Authored by: Justice BV Nagarathna<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"KEsho2ZdWk\"><p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/30\/know-thy-judge-justice-bv-nagarathna-igniting-hope-for-the-first-ever-woman-chief-justice-of-india-supreme-court\/\">Justice BV Nagarathna: Igniting Hope for the First Ever Woman Chief Justice of India<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><iframe loading=\"lazy\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\" sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" style=\"position: absolute; clip: rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px);\" title=\"&#8220;Justice BV Nagarathna: Igniting Hope for the First Ever Woman Chief Justice of India&#8221; &#8212; SCC Times\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/30\/know-thy-judge-justice-bv-nagarathna-igniting-hope-for-the-first-ever-woman-chief-justice-of-india-supreme-court\/embed\/#?secret=Vs6nnqWuHN#?secret=KEsho2ZdWk\" data-secret=\"KEsho2ZdWk\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\"><\/iframe><\/p>\n<h3 style=\"color: #000080;\">Buy Constitution of India &nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.ebcwebstore.com\/product\/the-constitution-of-india-coat-pocket-edition?products_id=100647\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.ebcwebstore.com\/product\/the-constitution-of-india-coat-pocket-edition?products_id=100647\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/s3.amazonaws.com\/ebcwebstore\/images\/the-constitution-of-india-coat-pocket-edition-Gopal-Sankaranarayanan-ebc-front-cover.JPG\" alt=\"Constitution of India\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\" class=\"aligncenter size-large wp-image-294438\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p style=\"font-style: italic;\">&#8220;Royalty is in the nature of a tax or an exaction. It is not merely a contractual payment but a statutory levy under Section 9 of the MMDR Act.&#8221;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67512,"featured_media":328101,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,38282],"tags":[31199,47247,58527,47295,44037,47211,55020,55018,71752,44666,37644,71404,71405,31021,33403,5363,2621,71403],"class_list":["post-328099","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-decisions-of-the-constitution-benches-of-the-supreme-court","tag-dissent","tag-justice-abhay-s-oka","tag-justice-augustine-george-masih","tag-justice-bv-nagarathna","tag-justice-dy-chandrachud","tag-justice-hrishikesh-roy","tag-justice-jb-pardiwala","tag-justice-manoj-misra","tag-justice-nagarathna-dissent-on-royalty-as-tax","tag-justice-satish-chandra-sharma","tag-justice-ujjal-bhuyan","tag-mines-act","tag-nine-judge-bench","tag-parliament","tag-royalty","tag-supreme-court","tag-Tax","tag-tax-on-mineral-rights"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.4 (Yoast SEO v26.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Justice BV Nagarathna\u2019s dissent in SC\u2019s verdict on \u2018royalty\u2019 as tax and States power to levy cess on mineral rights | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Justice Nagarathna held that royalty is a tax, and States have no legislative competence to levy any other tax, impost or fee on exercise of mineral rights.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/05\/justice-bv-nagarathna-dissent-sc-verdict-royalty-as-tax-states-power-to-levy-cess-on-minera-rights\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Read Justice BV Nagarathna\u2019s sole dissent in SC\u2019s verdict on \u2018royalty\u2019 as tax and States power to levy cess on mineral rights\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Justice Nagarathna held that royalty is a tax, and States have no legislative competence to levy any other tax, impost or fee on exercise of mineral rights.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/05\/justice-bv-nagarathna-dissent-sc-verdict-royalty-as-tax-states-power-to-levy-cess-on-minera-rights\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2024-08-05T12:30:47+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-08-07T09:07:12+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/Justice-Nagarathna-dissent-on-\u2018royalty-as-tax.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Apoorva\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Read Justice BV Nagarathna\u2019s sole dissent in SC\u2019s verdict on \u2018royalty\u2019 as tax and States power to levy cess on mineral rights\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Apoorva\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/05\/justice-bv-nagarathna-dissent-sc-verdict-royalty-as-tax-states-power-to-levy-cess-on-minera-rights\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/05\/justice-bv-nagarathna-dissent-sc-verdict-royalty-as-tax-states-power-to-levy-cess-on-minera-rights\/\",\"name\":\"Justice BV Nagarathna\u2019s dissent in SC\u2019s verdict on \u2018royalty\u2019 as tax and States power to levy cess on mineral rights | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/05\/justice-bv-nagarathna-dissent-sc-verdict-royalty-as-tax-states-power-to-levy-cess-on-minera-rights\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/05\/justice-bv-nagarathna-dissent-sc-verdict-royalty-as-tax-states-power-to-levy-cess-on-minera-rights\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/Justice-Nagarathna-dissent-on-\u2018royalty-as-tax.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-08-05T12:30:47+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-08-07T09:07:12+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9\"},\"description\":\"Justice Nagarathna held that royalty is a tax, and States have no legislative competence to levy any other tax, impost or fee on exercise of mineral rights.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/05\/justice-bv-nagarathna-dissent-sc-verdict-royalty-as-tax-states-power-to-levy-cess-on-minera-rights\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/05\/justice-bv-nagarathna-dissent-sc-verdict-royalty-as-tax-states-power-to-levy-cess-on-minera-rights\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/05\/justice-bv-nagarathna-dissent-sc-verdict-royalty-as-tax-states-power-to-levy-cess-on-minera-rights\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/Justice-Nagarathna-dissent-on-\u2018royalty-as-tax.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/Justice-Nagarathna-dissent-on-\u2018royalty-as-tax.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Justice Nagarathna dissent on \u2018royalty\u2019 as tax\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/05\/justice-bv-nagarathna-dissent-sc-verdict-royalty-as-tax-states-power-to-levy-cess-on-minera-rights\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Read Justice BV Nagarathna\u2019s sole dissent in SC\u2019s verdict on \u2018royalty\u2019 as tax and States power to levy cess on mineral rights\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9\",\"name\":\"Apoorva\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Apoorva\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-editor\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Justice BV Nagarathna\u2019s dissent in SC\u2019s verdict on \u2018royalty\u2019 as tax and States power to levy cess on mineral rights | SCC Times","description":"Justice Nagarathna held that royalty is a tax, and States have no legislative competence to levy any other tax, impost or fee on exercise of mineral rights.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/05\/justice-bv-nagarathna-dissent-sc-verdict-royalty-as-tax-states-power-to-levy-cess-on-minera-rights\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Read Justice BV Nagarathna\u2019s sole dissent in SC\u2019s verdict on \u2018royalty\u2019 as tax and States power to levy cess on mineral rights","og_description":"Justice Nagarathna held that royalty is a tax, and States have no legislative competence to levy any other tax, impost or fee on exercise of mineral rights.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/05\/justice-bv-nagarathna-dissent-sc-verdict-royalty-as-tax-states-power-to-levy-cess-on-minera-rights\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2024-08-05T12:30:47+00:00","article_modified_time":"2024-08-07T09:07:12+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/Justice-Nagarathna-dissent-on-\u2018royalty-as-tax.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Apoorva","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Read Justice BV Nagarathna\u2019s sole dissent in SC\u2019s verdict on \u2018royalty\u2019 as tax and States power to levy cess on mineral rights","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Apoorva","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/05\/justice-bv-nagarathna-dissent-sc-verdict-royalty-as-tax-states-power-to-levy-cess-on-minera-rights\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/05\/justice-bv-nagarathna-dissent-sc-verdict-royalty-as-tax-states-power-to-levy-cess-on-minera-rights\/","name":"Justice BV Nagarathna\u2019s dissent in SC\u2019s verdict on \u2018royalty\u2019 as tax and States power to levy cess on mineral rights | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/05\/justice-bv-nagarathna-dissent-sc-verdict-royalty-as-tax-states-power-to-levy-cess-on-minera-rights\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/05\/justice-bv-nagarathna-dissent-sc-verdict-royalty-as-tax-states-power-to-levy-cess-on-minera-rights\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/Justice-Nagarathna-dissent-on-\u2018royalty-as-tax.webp","datePublished":"2024-08-05T12:30:47+00:00","dateModified":"2024-08-07T09:07:12+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9"},"description":"Justice Nagarathna held that royalty is a tax, and States have no legislative competence to levy any other tax, impost or fee on exercise of mineral rights.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/05\/justice-bv-nagarathna-dissent-sc-verdict-royalty-as-tax-states-power-to-levy-cess-on-minera-rights\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/05\/justice-bv-nagarathna-dissent-sc-verdict-royalty-as-tax-states-power-to-levy-cess-on-minera-rights\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/05\/justice-bv-nagarathna-dissent-sc-verdict-royalty-as-tax-states-power-to-levy-cess-on-minera-rights\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/Justice-Nagarathna-dissent-on-\u2018royalty-as-tax.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/Justice-Nagarathna-dissent-on-\u2018royalty-as-tax.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Justice Nagarathna dissent on \u2018royalty\u2019 as tax"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/05\/justice-bv-nagarathna-dissent-sc-verdict-royalty-as-tax-states-power-to-levy-cess-on-minera-rights\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Read Justice BV Nagarathna\u2019s sole dissent in SC\u2019s verdict on \u2018royalty\u2019 as tax and States power to levy cess on mineral rights"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9","name":"Apoorva","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Apoorva"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/Justice-Nagarathna-dissent-on-\u2018royalty-as-tax.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":327356,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/25\/royalty-is-not-tax-under-mines-act-states-can-levy-tax-on-mineral-rights-supreme-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":328099,"position":0},"title":"Supreme Court holds that States can levy cesses on mining and mineral-use activities; Justice BV Nagarathna dissents","author":"Apoorva","date":"July 25, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"This matter was the oldest pending nine-judge Bench case before the Supreme court. The Bench had reserved its judgment in the matter on 14-03-2024","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Hot Off The Press&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Hot Off The Press","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/news\/hot_off_the_press\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"tax on mineral rights","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/sc-02-2.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/sc-02-2.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/sc-02-2.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/sc-02-2.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":328683,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/14\/judgment-on-state-power-levy-tax-mining-mineral-use-activities-apply-retrospectively-from-2005-supreme-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":328099,"position":1},"title":"Judgment on States\u2019 power to levy tax on mining and mineral-use activities to apply retrospectively from 2005: Supreme Court","author":"Apoorva","date":"August 14, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"On 25-07-2024, the Supreme Court in 8:1 majority held that royalty paid by mining operators to the Central government is not a tax and that States have the power to levy cesses on mining and mineral-use activities. Whereas, Justice BV Nagarathna gave a dissenting opinion.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Tax on Mineral rights retrospective","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/Tax-on-Mineral-rights-retrospective.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/Tax-on-Mineral-rights-retrospective.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/Tax-on-Mineral-rights-retrospective.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/Tax-on-Mineral-rights-retrospective.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":338256,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/01\/supreme-court-landmark-judgments-2024\/","url_meta":{"origin":328099,"position":2},"title":"50 Landmark Rulings: Supreme Court&#8217;s defining verdicts of 2024","author":"Apoorva","date":"January 1, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"In 2024, the Supreme Court of India delivered a series of landmark judgments that reshaped key legal and constitutional landscapes. Among the most significant were the AMU verdict; Mineral rights; Unilateral appointment of arbitrators; Constitutional validity of UP Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004; State's power to regulate industrial alcohol;\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Legal RoundUp&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Legal RoundUp","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/columns-for-roundup\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Supreme Court judgments 2024","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/Supreme-Court-judgments-2024.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/Supreme-Court-judgments-2024.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/Supreme-Court-judgments-2024.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/Supreme-Court-judgments-2024.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":338242,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/31\/supreme-court-constitution-and-larger-bench-judgments-in-2024\/","url_meta":{"origin":328099,"position":3},"title":"Supreme Court Constitution and Larger Bench Judgments which steered India\u2019s course in 2024","author":"Editor","date":"December 31, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The Supreme Court\u2019s 2024 decisions have marked a significant turning point in the country\u2019s legal and constitutional framework. Key rulings delivered by Constitutional Benches on Electoral bonds, private property, royalty as tax, AMU\u2019s minority status, sub-classification within reserved categories, etc. have left an impact on fundamental rights, political transparency and\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Legal RoundUp&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Legal RoundUp","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/columns-for-roundup\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Constitutional Bench 2024 roundup","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/Constitutional-Bench-2024-roundup.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/Constitutional-Bench-2024-roundup.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/Constitutional-Bench-2024-roundup.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/Constitutional-Bench-2024-roundup.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":327563,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/30\/supreme-court-ruling-parliament-power-impose-limitations-state-levy-tax-on-mineral-rights\/","url_meta":{"origin":328099,"position":4},"title":"Supreme Court on Parliament\u2019s power to impose limitations on State to levy tax on mineral rights","author":"Apoorva","date":"July 30, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court said that authorizing the Central Government to lay down the terms of mining leases and grant approval to concessions, the MMDR Act seeks to ensure that there is uniformity in the terms for working of mines and extraction of minerals.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Tax on mineral rights","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/10-15.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/10-15.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/10-15.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/10-15.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":338324,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/02\/2024-dissents-landmark-verdicts-yearly-review-sc-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":328099,"position":5},"title":"2024: A Year of Bold Dissents in the Face of Landmark Verdicts","author":"Sucheta","date":"January 2, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"2024 was a year of pathbreaking verdicts on several issues such as Electoral Bonds, Citizenship Act, Tax\/Royalty on Mines, Minority Institutions etc. Some major issues saw unanimous and near unanimous verdicts by the Supreme Court; however, there were notable Dissenting Opinions in 2024 which shed light on several key legal\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Legal RoundUp&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Legal RoundUp","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/columns-for-roundup\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Dissents Supreme Court verdicts","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/Dissents-Supreme-Court-verdicts.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/Dissents-Supreme-Court-verdicts.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/Dissents-Supreme-Court-verdicts.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/Dissents-Supreme-Court-verdicts.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/328099","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67512"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=328099"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/328099\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/328101"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=328099"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=328099"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=328099"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}