The broken promise of the right to work
The replacement of MGNREGA with the VB-GRAM G Act has weakened the rural right-to-work framework; restoring a meaningful right to work through adequate funding, living wages and stronger local institutions would advance constitutional aims while also supporting rural demand and economic growth
360° Perspective Analysis
Deep-dive into Geography, Polity, Economy, History, Environment & Social dimensions — AI-powered, on-demand
Context
The Union government has reportedly replaced (Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act) with a new act called the , effective July 2026. This has triggered a Supreme Court debate regarding whether the 'Right to Work' should be elevated to a fundamental right under (Right to Life) and raised concerns about a significant drop in rural employment due to the new Act's funding structure and departure from a demand-driven model.
UPSC Perspectives
Polity
The debate over the 'Right to Work' highlights the tension between fundamental rights and the . During the Constituent Assembly debates, B.R. Ambedkar argued against making the right to work a fundamental right due to the nascent Indian state's lack of fiscal and institutional capacity, placing it instead under the non-justiciable in the DPSP. However, the Supreme Court, in landmark rulings like Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), expanded the scope of to include the right to livelihood, arguing that life is impossible without the means of livelihood. The replacement of , a statutory right, with the raises constitutional questions about the doctrine of non-retrogression, which, as affirmed in Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of India, states that once a right is progressively realized by the State, it cannot be deliberately rolled back or diluted.
Economic
The economic rationale behind employment guarantee schemes is rooted in creating a positive multiplier effect. By providing statutory employment at minimum wages, the state increases the purchasing power of rural households, which in turn drives effective demand for goods and services and spurs broader economic productivity. wages were controversially delinked from the in 2009, often resulting in payments below market agricultural wages. The Supreme Court previously ruled in Sanjit Roy vs State of Rajasthan (1983) that paying less than the minimum wage for state-sponsored work amounts to 'forced labour', violating . The new reportedly places a disproportionate fiscal burden on States, which are already constrained by borrowing limits under the , potentially leading to a collapse in rural employment generation due to arbitrary funding caps.
Social
Employment guarantee schemes are critical instruments for poverty alleviation and social security in rural India. acted as a crucial safety net, providing a demand-driven right to 100 days of work per household, which was especially vital during economic distress (like the COVID-19 pandemic). The reported 68% decrease in employment under the new in July-August 2026 indicates a severe contraction of this safety net, leading to halved household earnings. This disproportionately impacts vulnerable groups, particularly women, who may be forced back into 'unpaid family work'. A robust right-to-work framework requires linking wages to living wages (a wage sufficient to provide decent food, shelter, and clothing), ensuring timely payments, and empowering local governance structures like to conduct social audits to ensure transparency and accountability.