Supreme Court praises MGNREGA as 'salutary', says it was neither freebie nor exploitation
The Supreme Court on Friday praised the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), describing it as a “salutary scheme” that was neither a freebie nor exploitation of rural workers. The observation came during a hearing on a petition by activist Aruna Roy seeking compensation for delayed wages under the repealed law.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, heading a three-judge Bench, orally remarked: “MGNREGA was a good, effective scheme. It did a wonderful job in rural areas and was implemented pan-India. It was neither a freebie nor exploitation.” The Bench was hearing arguments on whether the statutory guarantee of rural work should be elevated to a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Aruna Roy's counsel, Prashant Bhushan, argued that the right to a dignified life, protected under Article 21, requires employment at minimum wages. “Anything below minimum wages is forced labour,” he submitted. The petition also urged the court to examine whether a law could prescribe minimum wages lower than the threshold set by the State concerned.
The court, however, noted that the Constitution does not make the right to work a fundamental right, but a democratic aspiration under the Directive Principles of State Policy. Justice Joymalya Bagchi asked whether the provision of work at a “graded, compensatory level” should be treated on par with Article 21. He also cautioned that setting a minimum wage threshold might risk shrinking employment opportunities. Chief Justice Kant observed that wages are usually linked to prevalent local conditions.
The case took a significant turn with the introduction of the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Act, or VB-G RAM G Act, which replaced MGNREGA. The new law shifts from a demand-driven, rights-based framework to a centrally controlled model. Civil rights groups claim it has seen a 50% decline in employment generation, despite increasing guaranteed work days from 100 to 125 per household annually. States now bear three times the funding burden, with the cost-sharing ratio changing from 90:10 to 60:40.
Justice V. Mohana observed that the issues raised must be examined afresh in light of the new law. “We have to see fresh details, fresh statistics,” she said. Mr. Bhushan argued that States are required to provide nearly half the funds under the new law, and many lack the resources. The court asked him to file a new petition and disposed of the current one.
