The broken promise of the right to work

Polity & Governance / Social Justice · 2 September 2026 · Based on The Hindu (original report)

2-minute summary

In December 2025, the Union government replaced the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) with the Viksit Bharat — Guarantee for Rozgar & Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) (VB-GRAM G) Act, implemented from July 1, 2026. This transition has led to a sharp 68% decline in rural employment during July and August 2026 compared to the previous five-year average. Critics argue that the VB-GRAM G Act weakens the demand-driven 'right-to-work' framework by imposing arbitrary funding caps, delinking wages from statutory minimums, and shifting a disproportionate fiscal burden onto State governments. This policy shift has reignited constitutional debates. While the Supreme Court recently probed whether the 'Right to Work' should be elevated to a fundamental right under Article 21 (building on the landmark 1985 Olga Tellis judgment), historical Constituent Assembly debates show that Dr. B.R. Ambedkar placed it under Directive Principles (Article 41) due to the fiscal constraints of a newly independent nation. Restoring a robust, well-funded rural employment guarantee is vital for supporting rural demand, ensuring living wages, and fulfilling constitutional welfare goals.

Why it's in the news

A three-judge Supreme Court Bench led by the Chief Justice of India recently probed whether the 'Right to Work' should be treated on par with Article 21 (Right to Life) during a hearing on rural employment minimum wages. This debate comes amid a drastic 68% fall in rural employment following the replacement of MGNREGA with the VB-GRAM G Act in July 2026.

Background and context

The 'Right to Work' has been a point of contention since the framing of the Indian Constitution. During the Constituent Assembly debates, Prof. K.T. Shah advocated for its inclusion as a Fundamental Right to ensure socio-economic security. However, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar argued that immediate universal enforcement was fiscally unviable for a resource-constrained, newly independent India, leading to its placement under the Directive Principles of State Policy (Article 41). In 1985, the Supreme Court's Olga Tellis judgment expanded Article 21 to include the right to livelihood. This judicial shift paved the way for the statutory enactment of MGNREGA in 2005, guaranteeing 100 days of work. However, in December 2025, the government replaced MGNREGA with the VB-GRAM G Act, introducing structural changes like funding caps and increased fiscal burdens on states, which critics argue has diluted the statutory guarantee.

Constitutional provisions

• Article 21 — Right to Life; judicially interpreted in the Olga Tellis case (1985) to encompass the right to livelihood, as depriving a person of livelihood destroys their life.
• Article 41 — Directive Principle directing the State, within the limits of its economic capacity and development, to make effective provision for securing the right to work, education, and public assistance.
• Article 39 — Directs State policy toward securing adequate means of livelihood for all citizens and ensuring equal pay for equal work.
• Article 43 — Directs the State to secure a living wage, decent conditions of work, and a decent standard of life for all workers.

Government schemes

• Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), 2005 — A demand-driven social security scheme guaranteeing 100 days of unskilled manual work per household. Replaced in late 2025.
• Viksit Bharat — Guarantee for Rozgar & Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) (VB-GRAM G) Act — The successor to MGNREGA implemented from July 1, 2026, which introduces funding caps and shifts a larger fiscal burden to State governments.

Mains practice: To what extent can the 'Right to Work' be read into the 'Right to Life' under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution? Discuss the judicial evolution and fiscal challenges of realizing this right in India.

The debate over the 'Right to Work' as a fundamental right dates back to the Constituent Assembly. While initially placed under the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) due to fiscal constraints, subsequent judicial activism and legislative measures have increasingly linked it to Article 21 (Right to Life).

• **Judicial Evolution**: In the landmark *Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation* (1985) case, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to livelihood is an essential facet of the right to life under Article 21, as no person can live without the means of living. This established a strong judicial link between economic survival and fundamental rights.

• **Constitutional Synthesis**: The Constitution balances aspiration and reality. While Article 41 directs the State to secure the right to work "within the limits of its economic capacity," Articles 39 and 43 emphasize an adequate livelihood and living wages, creating a moral obligation that statutory frameworks like MGNREGA (2005) sought to operationalize.

• **Fiscal and Structural Challenges**:

- *Funding Constraints*: The transition to the VB-GRAM G Act in 2026 introduced arbitrary funding caps, departing from the demand-driven, open-ended funding model of MGNREGA.

- *Federal Burden*: Shifting a higher fiscal burden to States weakens the implementation capacity of resource-constrained states, leading to a 68% drop in rural employment generation.

- *Wage Disparity*: Delinking rural employment wages from the Minimum Wages Act (since 2009) has depressed real wages, failing to secure a true "living wage" as envisioned under Article 43.

In conclusion, elevating the right to work to a full fundamental right requires balancing fiscal prudence with welfare obligations. Strengthening local panchayat institutions and ensuring demand-driven, inflation-indexed wage funding are critical steps to fulfill the constitutional promise of a dignified life.

Prelims practice questions

Q1. With reference to the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) in the Indian Constitution, which of the following Articles directs the State to secure the 'right to work, to education and to public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement'?

1. Article 42
2. Article 43
3. Article 41
4. Article 39

Answer: C. Article 41 of the Constitution of India directs the State to make effective provision for securing the right to work, education, and public assistance within the limits of its economic capacity and development.

Q2. The landmark judgment in Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) is most closely associated with which of the following constitutional rights?

1. Right to Education under Article 21A
2. Right to Freedom of Speech under Article 19
3. Right to Equality under Article 14
4. Right to Livelihood as part of Right to Life under Article 21

Answer: D. In the Olga Tellis case (1985), the Supreme Court ruled that the right to livelihood is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21, establishing that depriving a person of their livelihood would effectively deprive them of their life.

Q3. Consider the following statements regarding the transition from MGNREGA to the Viksit Bharat — Guarantee for Rozgar & Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) (VB-GRAM G) Act: 1. The VB-GRAM G Act maintains the completely demand-driven, uncapped funding structure of MGNREGA. 2. Under the VB-GRAM G Act, a higher fiscal burden is placed on State governments compared to the previous framework. 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: B. Statement 1 is incorrect because the VB-GRAM G Act puts an arbitrary cap on funds, dismantling the demand-driven framework of MGNREGA. Statement 2 is correct as the new law places a disproportionate fiscal burden on State governments.

Revision flashcards

• Which Supreme Court case established that the 'right to livelihood' is an integral part of the 'right to life' under Article 21? Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985).
• What major legislative change occurred in December 2025 regarding India's rural employment guarantee? The Union government replaced MGNREGA with the Viksit Bharat — Guarantee for Rozgar & Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) (VB-GRAM G) Act.
• What was the main argument of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar regarding why the 'Right to Work' was placed in the DPSPs rather than Fundamental Rights? He argued that immediate universal enforcement was not fiscally or institutionally viable for a newly independent India with depleted resources.
• Which Article of the Indian Constitution directs the State to secure 'equal pay for equal work for both men and women'? Article 39(d).
• How did the wage determination for MGNREGA change in 2009? MGNREGA wages were delinked from the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, leading to wages lagging behind inflation and agricultural minimum wages in many states.