SC Defends MGNREGA’s Rights-Based Rural Employment Model

Why in the News ?

The Supreme Court described the repealed MGNREGA as a “salutary scheme” that was neither a freebie nor exploitation. The observation came while hearing a petition concerning delayed wages, minimum wages and the constitutional status of the rural right to work.

SC’s Observations on MGNREGA:

•     A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant praised MGNREGA for providing employment across rural India.
•     The Court observed that the scheme was neither a freebie nor exploitation, highlighting its role in supporting rural livelihoods.
•     The remarks came during a petition filed by activist Aruna Roy seeking payment of delayed MGNREGA wages and compensation.
•     The petition also questioned whether wages under rural employment programmes could remain below the minimum wage threshold prescribed by States.
•     Advocate Prashant Bhushan argued that employment at less than minimum wages could undermine the right to a dignified life under Article 21.
•     Justice Joymalya Bagchi questioned whether the right to work could be elevated to the status of a Fundamental Right when the Constitution does not expressly provide such a right.
•     The Court indicated that issues concerning the new rural employment framework should be examined separately under the new legislation.

MGNREGA versus the New Rural Employment Framework

•     Civil rights groups have alleged that the successor VB-G RAM G Act has witnessed a significant decline in employment generation.
•     According to the claims cited before the Court, employment generation has fallen by around 50%, despite the guaranteed employment period increasing from 100 to 125 days per household annually.
•     MGNREGA followed a demand-driven and rights-based approach, under which rural households could legally demand employment.
•     The new framework represents a shift towards a more centrally controlled model.
•     The funding structure has also changed, increasing the States’ burden from approximately 10% to 40%, according to the article.
•     Petitioners argued that greater State financial responsibility could reduce employment opportunities if States lack adequate resources.
•     The Supreme Court asked the petitioners to file a fresh petition addressing issues arising under the new law.

 Key points : MGNREGA and Right to Work

•     MGNREGA, 2005 provides a statutory guarantee of at least 100 days of wage employment per financial year to rural households willing to perform unskilled manual work.
•     It is a demand-driven programme, making it different from conventional welfare schemes.
•     Employment must generally be provided within 15 days of demand, failing which unemployment allowance provisions apply.
•     MGNREGA promotes livelihood security, rural asset creation, social inclusion and decentralised governance.
•     The Gram Panchayat plays a central role in planning and implementing works.
•     The right to work is not a Fundamental Right expressly guaranteed by the Constitution.
•     It is reflected in the Directive Principles of State Policy, particularly Article 41, which directs the State to make effective provision for the right to work, education and public assistance within its economic capacity.
•     Article 21 protects the right to life and personal liberty and has been judicially interpreted to include dimensions of a dignified life.