Supreme Court lauds MGNREGA as an effective scheme amid plea for right to work

Polity and Governance · 22 August 2026 · Based on The Hindu (original report)

2-minute summary

The Supreme Court of India recently lauded the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) as a highly effective, 'salutary' welfare scheme that was neither a freebie nor an exploitation of rural workers. The observations were made by a three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant during the hearing of a petition filed by activist Aruna Roy. The petition sought directions for paying delayed wages and compensation under the defunct MGNREGA, while also urging the court to elevate the statutory 'right to work' to a fundamental right under Article 21 (Right to Life). The transition from MGNREGA to its successor, the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) or VB-GRAM G Act, has sparked significant debate. Civil rights groups highlight that despite an increase in guaranteed work days from 100 to 125, employment generation has declined by 50%. This decline is attributed to a structural shift from a demand-driven, rights-based framework to a centrally controlled model, alongside a tripling of the financial burden on states due to a shift in the funding ratio from 90:10 to 60:40.

Why it's in the news

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court praised the repealed MGNREGA scheme as an effective rural welfare tool while hearing a petition by activist Aruna Roy. The petition seeks to address delayed wage payments and argues for elevating the right to work to a fundamental right under Article 21.

Background and context

MGNREGA, enacted in 2005, was a landmark rights-based legislation guaranteeing 100 days of unskilled manual work to rural households. It operated on a demand-driven model with a 90:10 funding split between the Centre and States. In 2026, the scheme was replaced by the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) or VB-GRAM G Act. While the new Act increases guaranteed work days to 125, it transitions the system to a centrally controlled model and alters the funding ratio to 60:40. This shift has drawn criticism from civil rights groups due to a reported 50% drop in employment generation and a reduction of 67.6 lakh workers in the transition's first fortnight, leading to litigation regarding the constitutional status of the right to work.

Constitutional provisions

• Article 21 — Right to Life and Personal Liberty. Petitioners argue that a dignified life requires employment at minimum wages, justifying its elevation to a fundamental right.
• Article 23 — Prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour. Counsel argued that providing employment below minimum wages constitutes forced labour.
• Article 41 — Directive Principle directing the State to secure the right to work, to education, and to public assistance in cases of unemployment, within its economic capacity.
• Article 43 — Directive Principle urging the State to secure a living wage and decent standard of life for all workers.

Committees and reports

• Parliamentary Standing Committee on Rural Development and Panchayati Raj — Highlighted issues of delayed wage payments, inadequate work days, and the necessity of indexing wages to inflation under rural employment schemes.

Government schemes

• Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) — A demand-driven, rights-based scheme providing 100 days of guaranteed wage employment, praised by the SC as a highly effective non-freebie welfare tool.
• Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) - VB-GRAM G — The successor to MGNREGA, featuring a centrally controlled model, 125 guaranteed work days, and a 60:40 Centre-State funding split.

International organisations

• International Labour Organization (ILO) — Advocates for the 'Decent Work Agenda' and minimum wage standards globally, aligning with the domestic debate on fair wages and the prevention of forced labour.

Previous UPSC questions on this theme

• Mains GS-2 2022 — Reforming the government delivery system through the Direct Benefit Transfer Scheme is a progressive step, but it has its limitations too. Comment.

Mains practice: Analyze the constitutional status of the 'Right to Work' in India. Evaluate the challenges in elevating it to a Fundamental Right under Article 21, and discuss how welfare schemes bridge this gap.

The 'Right to Work' in India holds a unique position, transitioning between a democratic aspiration and a statutory reality. Constitutionally, it is placed under Article 41 of the Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV), which mandates the State to secure the right to work within the limits of its economic capacity. While the Supreme Court has progressively interpreted Article 21 (Right to Life) to include the right to livelihood (as seen in the Olga Tellis case), the right to work itself is not a justiciable fundamental right.

Elevating the right to work to a Fundamental Right under Article 21 presents several structural challenges:

• **Fiscal Constraints**: Making the right to work justiciable would legally obligate the state to provide employment or unemployment compensation to all citizens, creating an unsustainable fiscal burden on both Central and State exchequers.

• **Economic Fluctuations**: Market dynamics and structural shifts make it difficult for the state to guarantee productive employment continuously.

• **Federal Imbalances**: As observed in the transition to the VB-GRAM G Act, shifting funding ratios (from 90:10 to 60:40) increases the financial strain on states, making uniform implementation of a fundamental guarantee difficult.

• **Administrative Capacity**: Centralized control and rigid wage-setting mechanisms often fail to align with local economic conditions, leading to administrative bottlenecks.

Statutory welfare schemes bridge this gap by translating constitutional aspirations into actionable rights. Schemes like MGNREGA and its successor, VB-GRAM G, provide a legal framework for guaranteed wage employment without the absolute liabilities of Part III. To make these schemes effective, the state must ensure cooperative federal funding, timely wage payments, and indexation of wages to local market realities, thereby preserving the dignity of rural labor.

Prelims practice questions

Q1. With reference to the transition from MGNREGA to the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) (VB-GRAM G) Act, consider the following statements: 1. The VB-GRAM G Act increased the guaranteed work days per household from 100 to 125 days annually. 2. Under the VB-GRAM G Act, the Centre-State funding ratio shifted from 90:10 to 60:40, reducing the financial burden on state governments. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

1. 1 only
2. 2 only
3. Both 1 and 2
4. Neither 1 nor 2

Answer: A. Statement 1 is correct: The VB-GRAM G Act increased guaranteed work days from 100 to 125. Statement 2 is incorrect: The shift from a 90:10 to a 60:40 funding ratio increased the financial burden on states three-fold.

Q2. Which of the following Articles under the Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV) of the Indian Constitution explicitly directs the State to secure the 'right to work, to education and to public assistance in certain cases'?

1. Article 43
2. Article 41
3. Article 39
4. Article 45

Answer: B. Article 41 of the Indian Constitution directs the State to make effective provision for securing the right to work, to education, and to public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness, and disablement.

Q3. In the context of judicial arguments regarding rural employment schemes in India, paying wages below the prescribed minimum threshold has been argued to violate which of the following constitutional rights?

1. Freedom of trade and occupation under Article 19(1)(g)
2. Equality before law under Article 14
3. Prohibition of forced labour under Article 23
4. Right to property under Article 300A

Answer: C. As argued by counsel in the Supreme Court, a dignified life requires employment at minimum wages, and paying anything below the minimum wage threshold is legally equivalent to forced labour, which is prohibited under Article 23.

Revision flashcards

• What is the primary difference in the funding ratio between the defunct MGNREGA and the VB-GRAM G Act? Under MGNREGA, the Centre-State funding ratio was 90:10, whereas under the VB-GRAM G Act, it shifted to 60:40, tripling the financial burden on States.
• Under which Part and Article of the Indian Constitution is the 'Right to Work' explicitly mentioned as an aspiration? Part IV (Directive Principles of State Policy), Article 41.
• How many guaranteed work days are provided under the VB-GRAM G Act compared to the older MGNREGA? The VB-GRAM G Act guarantees 125 days of work per household annually, compared to 100 days under MGNREGA.
• What structural shift occurred in the governance model from MGNREGA to the VB-GRAM G Act? The model shifted from a demand-driven, rights-based framework (MGNREGA) to a centrally controlled model (VB-GRAM G).
• Why did the petitioner argue that paying wages below the minimum threshold violates Article 23? Because a dignified life requires fair compensation, and paying wages below the minimum threshold is considered equivalent to forced labour under Article 23.