The passage of a new law to replace the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) has triggered a sharp constitutional and political debate. Critics argue that the proposed legislation fundamentally alters the character of rural employment policy in India, shifting it away from a rights-based framework towards a centrally controlled scheme. Supporters see it as a restructuring exercise aimed at efficiency and asset creation, while opponents view it as a dilution of constitutional commitments to the rural poor.
Why the Change Is Being Called a Rights Issue
MGNREGA was not merely a welfare scheme but a legal recognition of the state’s responsibility to provide work. Its philosophical foundation lay in Article 41 of the Constitution, which directs the state to make effective provisions for securing the right to work within its economic capacity. While this right was placed under the Directive Principles and not made enforceable in courts, it was intended to guide lawmaking and public policy.
The replacement law is being criticised for weakening this principle. By altering the guarantee of employment into a framework governed by predefined financial limits, the obligation of the state to respond to workers’ demand for employment is seen as significantly reduced.
Constitutional Roots of the Right to Work
During the framing of the Constitution, there was a clear ideological divide on whether the right to work should be a fundamental right. Ultimately, it was included among the Directive Principles as a moral and political commitment rather than a legal entitlement. These principles were envisioned as instruments guiding the legislature towards economic democracy.
MGNREGA, enacted decades later, was widely seen as a partial realisation of this constitutional promise. It translated an abstract directive into a concrete law by placing responsibility on the state to provide employment at minimum wages to rural households willing to undertake manual work.
How MGNREGA Changed Rural Employment
The original law guaranteed up to 100 days of work per rural household and was universal in nature, open to all adults who volunteered. Its most distinctive feature was that it was demand-driven: work had to be provided when demanded, rather than being capped by prior budgetary allocations.
This design gave rural households a fallback option. They could seek better-paying or more suitable employment elsewhere, but retained the right to demand work under MGNREGA during periods of distress. Equal wages for men and women, central responsibility for wage payments, and a decentralised role for States and Panchayats were core to its democratic character.
What the New Law Changes in Practice
The new framework departs from this approach by linking employment to “normative financial allocations” fixed by the Centre. Once these limits are exhausted, there is no longer a legal obligation to provide work. States are expected to bear a significantly higher share of costs, even as they face fiscal pressures and reduced flexibility.
Project design, monitoring, and audits are proposed to be more tightly centralised, reducing the autonomy of States and local bodies. Critics argue that this undermines federal principles and weakens grassroots participation, which was central to the earlier law.
Concerns Over Class and Gender Impact
One of the most debated provisions is the restriction on employment during peak agricultural seasons. In a context where mechanisation has reduced farm employment and wages often fall below statutory minimums, MGNREGA has functioned as a bargaining tool for workers. Limiting access during such periods may reduce workers’ negotiating power, particularly affecting women, who already face wage discrimination in agriculture.
Additional conditions such as mandatory Aadhaar linkage and digitally recorded attendance have also raised concerns. In areas with poor connectivity and administrative capacity, such requirements have previously resulted in exclusion and delayed wage payments.
Who Depends on Rural Employment Guarantees
Data over the years has shown that MGNREGA disproportionately supports socially and economically vulnerable groups. Women constitute more than half of the workforce in many States, while Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are represented well above their share in the population. For these groups, access to guaranteed work has functioned as a critical social safety net.
The proposed law has drawn criticism for reducing representation of such groups in grievance redressal and advisory mechanisms, raising questions about inclusiveness and accountability.
A Reflection of Rural Economic Distress
Despite difficult working conditions and modest wages, participation in rural employment programmes has continued to rise. This persistence reflects not preference but compulsion, driven by agrarian distress, unstable incomes, and lack of alternative employment. Even as demand for work has increased, average days of employment per household have remained well below the promised threshold, and wage arrears have accumulated.
Against this backdrop, critics argue that promising higher notional workdays without restoring the demand-driven guarantee risks deepening insecurity rather than alleviating it.
What to Note for Prelims?
- MGNREGA was a demand-driven, rights-based employment law.
- Article 41 of the Constitution underpins the idea of the right to work.
- The new law links employment provision to fixed financial allocations.
- States are expected to bear a higher share of programme costs.
What to Note for Mains?
- Directive Principles and their role in shaping socio-economic legislation.
- Shift from rights-based welfare to allocation-based schemes.
- Federal implications of increased centralisation in rural programmes.
- Impact of employment policy changes on women and marginalised groups.
- Rural distress, labour bargaining power, and constitutional morality.
