The Broken Promise of Right to Work

02 Sep 2026

Tags: Social Justice   Vulnerable Sections   Welfare schemes

Source: The Hindu

Context

• OnAugust 21, a three-judge Supreme Court Bench led by the Chief Justice of India dismissed a petition and sought a fresh petition in a case concerning minimum wages under rural employment guarantee programmes.
• The Bench highlighted MGNREGA’s role in rural development and raised whether the Right to Work should receive protection comparable to Article 21 (Right to Life).

MGNREGA and the Right to Work

• MGNREGA was the first pan-India law based explicitly on the right to work, guaranteeing up to 100 days of employment per rural household.
• Despite chronic underfunding and limited coverage, it created a demand-driven statutory obligation on the State to provide employment at prescribed wages.
• The MGNREGA framework was replaced in December 2025 by the Viksit Bharat–Guarantee for Rozgar & Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) [VB-GRAM G] Act, implemented from July 1.
• Under MGNREGA, about 3.44 crore households generated around 44 crore person-days of employment in July–August on average over the preceding five years; employment fell 68% in July–August 2026 compared with this average.
• The decline may reflect teething issues, but the shift away from MGNREGA’s demand-driven framework and the greater fiscal burden on States are major concerns.

Constitutional Foundation of the Right to Work

• The Constituent Assembly debated whether the Right to Work should be a Fundamental Right or a Directive Principle of State Policy (DPSP).
• K.T. Shah supported Fundamental Right status, arguing that the State needed a constitutional and positive legal mandate to ensure socio-economic security.
• B.R. Ambedkar considered the right important but argued that its immediate universal enforcement was fiscally and institutionally difficult for newly independent India.
• Consequently, the Right to Work was placed under DPSPs, reflecting a constitutional aspiration rather than an immediately enforceable Fundamental Right.

Constitutional Provisions

• Article 41: Directs the State, within its economic capacity and development, to make effective provision for the right to work, education and public assistance.
• Article 39: Promotes adequate means of livelihood and equal pay for equal work for men and women.
• Article 42: Requires just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief.
• Article 43: Directs the State to secure living wages and a decent standard of life for workers.

From Constitutional Aspiration to Statutory Right

• In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), the Supreme Court recognised the right to livelihood as integral to the Right to Life under Article 21, strengthening the constitutional basis of livelihood and work.
• The National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005, enacted after sustained mobilisation by rural workers and activists, transformed the right to work into a statutory entitlement.
• It required the State to provide employment when demanded, making employment provision a legal obligation rather than merely a policy choice.

The Wage Question

• In 2009, MGNREGA wages were delinked from the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
• MGNREGA wages subsequently barely kept pace with inflation and remained below minimum agricultural wages in most States.
• Low wages, combined with inadequate employment-generation budgets, reduced rural household earnings; estimated household earnings halved in July–August 2026 compared with the same period in 2025.

Supreme Court and Minimum Wages

• The Supreme Court observed that, if financial resources remain unchanged, imposing a minimum wage threshold could reduce the number of workers receiving employment.
• This raises two concerns: it appears inconsistent with Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan (1983), where wages below minimum wages were held violative of Article 23 and akin to forced labour.
• It also assumes that welfare-programme expenditure must remain fixed and fiscally constrained, overlooking the potential economic benefits of higher rural wages.
• Higher rural wages can increase purchasing power and human development, raise effective demand, generate a multiplier effect and support higher economic productivity.

Concerns with VB-GRAM G

• The arbitrary funding cap and absence of a strong link with minimum/living wages weaken the core idea of an employment guarantee.
• Greater financial responsibility for States is problematic because States already face fiscal constraints and borrowing limits under the FRBM framework.
• The VB-GRAM G Act permits certain areas to be denotified/excluded, potentially weakening the universality of the earlier right-to-work framework.
• These changes, alongside stagnant rural wages and increasing women’s participation as “unpaid family workers”, raise concerns about declining rural employment security.

Doctrine of Non-Retrogression

• The non-retrogression principle holds that once the State establishes a certain level of progressive rights and legal protection, it should not deliberately dilute or roll back those protections.
• The Supreme Court affirmed this principle in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India.
• Applying this principle to employment guarantees, replacing a demand-driven statutory right with a framework involving funding constraints and exclusions may raise concerns of regressive rights protection.

Way Forward

• Link rural employment wages with living wages, ensure timely wage payments and provide adequate funding to preserve the employment guarantee.
• Strengthen social audits and empower local institutions to improve transparency and address corruption.
• Give greater implementation and monitoring powers to Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs).
• Restore a meaningful Right to Work framework that advances the constitutional objectives of Articles 21, 39, 41, 42 and 43.
• Adequately funded employment guarantees can simultaneously promote social protection, rural demand, human development and economic growth.