Context

• The replacement of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) by the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) (VB-G RAM G) Act, 2025 marks a decisive shift in India’s rural employment framework.
• MGNREGA was a rights-based, decentralised and demand-driven law, whereas the new Act reflects a centralised, discretionary and fiscally restrictive approach.
• This transition raises serious concerns regarding the constitutional right to livelihood, federalism, decentralisation, and social equity.

Constitutional and Legal Foundations of MGNREGA

• MGNREGA drew legitimacy from Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life.
• In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), the Supreme Court held that the right to livelihood is an intrinsic component of the right to life.
• MGNREGA operationalised this interpretation by recognising the right to work as a legal entitlement rather than a welfare measure.
• The Act created justiciable rights, including employment on demand, unemployment allowance if work was not provided within 15 days, timely wage payments with compensation for delays, gender parity in wages, and minimum wage guarantees.
• These provisions transformed rural workers into rights-holders and imposed clear legal obligations on the State, distinguishing MGNREGA from earlier public works programmes.

Achievements and Social Impact of MGNREGA

• MGNREGA produced multiple positive outcomes.
  • First, it was universal and not targeted, reducing exclusion errors.
  • Second, it led to increased rural incomes and a decline in poverty levels.
  • Third, it significantly addressed gender and caste inequalities, with women constituting around 58% of workers in recent years.
  • Importantly, 45% of women workers had not participated in paid work prior to MGNREGA, highlighting its transformative role.
• The programme also reduced dependence on moneylenders by 21%, improved school enrolment, and created durable assets that alleviated ecological distress.
• As an instrument of the 73rd Constitutional Amendment, MGNREGA strengthened panchayati raj institutions through decentralised planning and execution.
• Its effectiveness was globally acknowledged, and its role as a critical safety net during the COVID-19 pandemic further reinforced its significance.

Gradual Undermining of MGNREGA

• Despite its success, MGNREGA faced systematic erosion over the past decade.
• Chronic underfunding resulted in persistent wage delays and rationing of work, undermining its demand-driven character.
• Technocratic interventions, such as photo-based attendance systems and complex payment mechanisms, led to exclusions and new avenues for corruption.
• Additionally, staff shortages and underfunding of social audits weakened accountability structures.
• These developments diluted the Act’s effectiveness and paved the way for legislative replacement rather than corrective reform.

Broader Implications of the VB-G RAM G Act

• Centralisation and Fiscal Burden under the VB-G RAM G Act
  • The VB-G RAM G Act fundamentally alters the governance of rural employment.
    • Section 5(1) grants the Union government wide discretionary powers over the nature and location of public works.
    • Section 4(5) introduces State-wise normative allocations, replacing demand-driven employment with a command-driven model.
  • This shift undermines decentralisation and federal principles, placing States at the mercy of central allocations.
  • Unlike MGNREGA, the new Act removes the Union government’s obligation to compensate for wage delays, despite its dominant financial role earlier.
  • The revised Centre–State funding ratio of 60:40, coupled with the provision that States must bear expenditure beyond their allocations, imposes a severe fiscal burden.
  • These clauses risk political favouritism, as States with limited fiscal capacity may be compelled to suppress work demand, leading to higher unemployment and distress migration.
• Reinforcing Inequality and Weakening Worker Rights
  • Several provisions of the new Act threaten to entrench existing inequalities.
    • Section 6(2) permits suspension of employment for 60 days during the agricultural season, disproportionately affecting landless workers and women, for whom year-round employment is essential.
    • This provision artificially pits farmers against labourers, despite evidence of mutual benefits under MGNREGA.
  • Although the Act promises 125 days of employment per household, this claim lacks credibility when average employment had already declined to around 50 days due to funding constraints.
  • Crucially, the new Act introduces no substantive mechanisms to address corruption, while dismantling existing safeguards.

Conclusion

• MGNREGA embodied a rare convergence of Mahatma Gandhi’s vision of decentralised governance and B.R. Ambedkar’s commitment to enforceable rights.
• By formalising years of dilution, the VB-G RAM G Act reduces a constitutional entitlement to a discretionary scheme, weakens federalism, and exacerbates inequality.
• Rather than advancing inclusive development, it represents a retreat from the constitutional promise of dignity, livelihood, and social justice.