The broken promise of the right to work

The debate over the 'Right to Work' highlights the tension between fundamental rights and the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP). 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 Article 41 in the DPSP. However, the Supreme Court, in landmark rulings like Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), expanded the scope of Article 21 to include the right to livelihood, arguing that life is impossible without the means of livelihood. The replacement of MGNREGA, a statutory right, with the VB-GRAM G Act 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.

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. MGNREGA wages were controversially delinked from the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 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 Article 23. The new VB-GRAM G Act reportedly places a disproportionate fiscal burden on States, which are already constrained by borrowing limits under the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management (FRBM) Act, potentially leading to a collapse in rural employment generation due to arbitrary funding caps.

Employment guarantee schemes are critical instruments for poverty alleviation and social security in rural India. MGNREGA 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 VB-GRAM G Act 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 Panchayati Raj Institutions to conduct social audits to ensure transparency and accountability.