With reference to the management of minor minerals in India, consider the following statements : I. Sand is a ‘minor mineral’ according to the prevailing law in the country. II. State governments have the power to grant mining leases of minor minerals, but the powers regarding the formation of rules related to the grant of minor minerals lie with the Central Government. III. State Governments have the power to frame rules to prevent illegal mining of minor minerals. Which of the statements given above is/are correct ?

Correct answer: A (1 and 3 only). Statement II is wrong.

• Statement I is correct. Under the MMDR Act, 1957, minerals are classed as major or minor. The Centre notifies minor minerals, and sand, bajri, bricks, ordinary clay and stone fall in that list. Sand is a minor mineral.
• Statement II is wrong. Grant of leases for minor minerals is a State subject. Section 15 of the MMDR Act empowers State Governments to make rules for minor minerals, covering grant of concessions, royalty and related conditions. The Centre does not frame the rules for granting minor mineral leases.
• Statement III is correct. Section 23C, inserted by the 2015 amendment, allows State Governments to make rules to prevent illegal mining, transportation and storage of minor minerals. This is the legal basis for State enforcement mechanisms.

Mains connection: the minor mineral regime is a good example of Centre-State federal balance in natural resource governance, and it links to illegal sand mining and environmental clearance debates. Since the 2015 amendment, the State's role has grown and the Centre's role is largely limited to notifying the minor mineral list and broad frameworks.

Trap: aspirants often assume that since sand is a mineral, all rule-making sits with the Centre. Remember that the MMDR Act gives the States the central role for minor minerals.