The Supreme Court has praised the repealed MGNREGA as a 'salutary scheme,' rejecting claims that it was a populist freebie or an exploitative measure for rural workers.
- Supreme Court termed MGNREGA a 'salutary and effective scheme.'
- The Court rejected arguments labeling the scheme as a 'freebie' or 'exploitation.'
- Reports suggest a 50% decline in employment under the new VB-GRAM G Act.
- Legal debate continues over whether the 'right to work' falls under Article 21.
New Delhi: In a significant judicial observation, the Supreme Court of India on Friday praised the repealed Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA). A three-judge Bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, described the scheme as a 'salutary' and highly effective program that played a vital role in rural India. The Court explicitly noted that the scheme was neither a mere 'freebie' nor a mechanism for the 'exploitation' of rural laborers.
The Legal Battle for Dignity
The observations came during a hearing regarding a petition filed by activist Aruna Roy. Representing Ms. Roy, senior advocate Prashant Bhushan argued that the right to a dignified life is intrinsic to Article 21 of the Constitution. He contended that receiving wages below the state-determined minimum threshold constitutes 'forced labour.'
The Bench, including Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana, engaged in a deep constitutional debate. While the court questioned whether the right to work should be elevated to a fundamental right or remain a Directive Principle of State Policy (DPSP), the advocates maintained that economic security is a prerequisite for human dignity.
Why This Matters
BozokMedia analysis shows that the transition from MGNREGA to the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin), or the VB-GRAM G Act, marks a tectonic shift in India's social security landscape. The new model has moved from a demand-driven, rights-based framework to a centrally controlled system. Furthermore, the financial burden on states has shifted drastically from a 90:10 ratio to 60:40, potentially straining state exchequers.
The shift from a rights-based mandate to a centrally controlled model could fundamentally alter the rural safety net.
MGNREGA vs. VB-GRAM G Act: Comparative Analysis
| Feature | MGNREGA | VB-GRAM G Act |
|---|---|---|
| Framework Type | Demand-Driven / Rights-Based | Centrally Controlled |
| Guaranteed Days | 100 Days | 125 Days |
| Funding Ratio (Center:State) | 90:10 | 60:40 |
| Employment Trend | High Effectiveness | 50% Decline Reported |
Data from LibTech indicates a staggering decline in worker rolls, with a reduction of 67.6 lakh workers in the first fortnight following the transition. The Court has directed the petitioners to file a fresh petition considering the specific statistics and provisions of the new law.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
1. What was the Supreme Court's stance on MGNREGA?
The Court stated that MGNREGA was an effective, pan-India scheme that provided essential support without being an exploitative freebie.
2. What is the main criticism of the new VB-GRAM G Act?
Critics and data suggest that despite increasing guaranteed days, employment generation has dropped by nearly 50% and the financial burden on states has increased.
