The new law has shifted from a demand-driven rights-based framework to a centrally-controlled model
| Photo Credit:
Indrani Pal _12203
The Supreme Court on Friday heaped praise on India’s former national employment guarantee law, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), calling it a “salutary scheme” which was neither a freebie nor exploitation of rural workers.The accolade from the court has come even as civil rights groups claim that the Centre’s new law, the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) or the VB-G RAM G Act has seen a 50 per cent decline in employment generation compared to MGNREGA despite hiking guaranteed work days from 100 to 125 for every household in a year.The new law has shifted from a demand-driven rights-based framework to a centrally-controlled model. It has also seen a three-fold increase in States’ funding burden, from a 90:10 ratio to 60:40.“MGNREGA was a good, effective scheme. It did a wonderful job in rural areas, and was implemented pan-India. It was neither freebie nor exploitation,” Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, heading a three-judge Bench, orally observed.The Bench was hearing a petition filed by activist Aruna Roy seeking directions for the government to pay delayed wages under the MGNREGA, along with compensation for the delay.Advocates Prashant Bhushan, Cheryl D’souza and Neha Rathi, for Roy, urged the court to examine whether a law could prescribe minimum wages lower than the threshold determined by the State concerned.The petition has also sought to elevate the statutory guarantee of rural work to status of a fundamental right under Article 21 (right to life) of the Constitution.“The Constitution does not make the right to work a fundamental right. It is more a democratic aspiration under Part IV (Directive Principles of State Policy)... To achieve that aspiration, the State formulates the policy by which work is provided at a graded, compensatory level. Should we treat it on par with Article 21?” Justice Joymalya Bagchi asked Bhushan.The judge said when the State contracts its social welfare activities, can the court issue a mandamus to implement MGNREGA or VB-G RAM G. Bhushan said the right to lead a dignified life was part of Article 21.“A dignified life requires you to get employment at minimum wages. Anything below minimum wages is forced labour,” Bhushan submitted.Justice Bagchi said a threshold for minimum wages may also run the risk of employments shrinking.Chief Justice Kant said wages would be linked to the local conditions.Justice V Mohana said the issues raised by Bhushan must be examined afresh in the light of the new law, and not under the MGNREGA.“We have to see fresh details, fresh statistics,” Justice Mohana said.At this point, Bhushan submitted that the States had to cough almost half the funds under the new employment guarantee law.“The number of employments has come down by half. States have no money,” Bhushan said.The court asked him to file a new petition while disposing of the current one.Published on August 21, 2026
