Context

• The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), enacted in 2005 during Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh’s first tenure, marked a watershed in India’s welfare policy.
• Rooted in Article 41 of the Constitution, which directs the State to secure the right to work, MGNREGA was designed as a rights-based legislation, not a discretionary scheme.
• Shaped through extensive public consultations and passed unanimously by Parliament, it evolved into the world’s largest social security programme and one of the most rigorously studied.
• Recent policy changes, however, represent a systematic dismantling of its legal, financial, and democratic foundations, threatening rural livelihoods and India’s constitutional ethos. 

MGNREGA: A Rights-Based and Transformative Intervention

• MGNREGA was conceived as a demand-driven guarantee of employment, obligating the State to provide work when demanded. This legal entitlement empowered rural households, particularly landless labourers, by enhancing bargaining power and raising agricultural wages.
• Its decentralised framework, aligned with the 73rd Constitutional Amendment, entrusted Gram Sabhas with planning, implementation, and social audits, fostering transparency, accountability, and grassroots democracy.
• Over two decades, MGNREGA reduced distress migration, strengthened wage security, and empowered panchayati raj institutions.
• Its significance was most evident during the COVID-19 pandemic, when it served as a crucial lifeline alongside the National Food Security Act.
• Persistently high demand for work continues to underline its indispensability for sustaining rural livelihoods. 

Demolition of MGNREGA in Stages

• Undermining the Legal Guarantee
  • The most damaging shift has been the elimination of the legal guarantee of work.
  • Employment is no longer an enforceable right but a bureaucratic provision controlled by the Union government.
  • The scheme’s coverage is now restricted to rural areas as notified at the Centre’s discretion, weakening its universal applicability.
  • Equally damaging is the replacement of uncapped, demand-based funding with pre-determined budgetary allocations.
  • This change caps employment days at the State level, subordinating people’s needs to central fiscal priorities and effectively nullifying the guarantee of work.
• Financial Centralisation and the Burden on States
  • The revision of the cost-sharing ratio from 90:10 to 60:40 has transferred a significant financial burden to States.
  • Previously, strong central funding encouraged States to respond to demand without fiscal hesitation.
  • Under the new arrangement, any expenditure beyond the Union’s capped allocation must be borne entirely by States, many of which already face acute financial stress.
  • This discourages States from providing employment, hollowing out the scheme from within.
  • The removal of year-round employment, through the identification of 60 no-work days during peak agricultural seasons, further undermines labour security.
  • By weakening alternative employment options, these changes erode workers’ bargaining power and suppress wage growth, particularly troubling at a time when agricultural employment has risen for the first time since Independence.
• From Decentralisation to Centralised Control
  • MGNREGA’s decentralised architecture was central to its success. Gram Sabhas played a pivotal role in identifying, planning, and executing works, embodying the constitutional vision of local self-governance.
  • This has now been replaced by a top-down framework under the PM GatiShakti National Master Plan, which prioritises Union-level objectives over local needs.
  • This shift represents centralisation with a vengeance, undermining federalism and democratic participation.
  • Claims of increasing guaranteed employment from 100 to 125 days ring hollow. Capped budgets, reduced State incentives, delayed payments, and technological barriers make such expansion implausible.
  • These changes are consistent with a decade-long strategy of weakening MGNREGA through stagnant allocations and administrative throttling.

MGNREGA and the Broader Assault on Rights

• The dismantling of MGNREGA forms part of a broader rollback of India’s rights-based framework.
• The weakening of the Right to Information, dilution of land acquisition and forest rights, erosion of the National Green Tribunal, undermining of the Right to Education, and attempts to deny farmers minimum support price protections reflect a consistent pattern.
• Together, these measures signal a retreat from constitutional commitments to social justice, accountability, and democratic rights.
• In this context, the erosion of the right to work is not merely administrative reform but a fundamental departure from the Constitution’s welfare vision, with severe implications for inequality and rural distress.

Conclusion

• MGNREGA embodied Mahatma Gandhi’s vision of Sarvodaya, the welfare of all, and translated constitutional ideals into lived realities for millions.
• Its effective dismantling constitutes a collective moral and constitutional failure, with profound human and economic consequences.
• Defending MGNREGA is inseparable from defending India’s rights-based democracy, federalism, and social justice.
• At stake is not merely a programme, but the constitutional promise of dignity, work, and welfare for all citizens.