Is India Heading Towards the End of the ‘Right to Work’?

 

VB–G RAM G Bill 2025: Amid heated debates in Parliament, the questions being raised about MGNREGA (Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act) are not limited to a single government scheme. Rather, this debate challenges the fundamental ideas underpinning India’s democratic, constitutional, and social framework. Speculation about the dismantling or fundamental alteration of MGNREGA has caused deep concern among social activists, economists, and policy experts across the country. According to many experts, if this law is weakened or curtailed, it would signal the gradual erosion of the very concept of the ‘right to work’ in India.

MGNREGA is not merely an employment scheme; it has been the backbone of rights-based welfare policies in the country. The law guarantees rural citizens a minimum of 100 days of wage employment per year. Its most significant feature is that employment is demand-driven: citizens demand work, and the government has a legal obligation to provide it. If work is not provided, an unemployment allowance must be paid. This legal guarantee is what clearly distinguishes MGNREGA from other welfare schemes.

At the heart of the current controversy is a proposed new law or administrative framework that would empower the government to decide where schemes like MGNREGA will be implemented and where they will not. According to experts, this approach runs completely contrary to the spirit of the original Act. MGNREGA was conceived on the principle of uniform implementation across the country, allowing those in need of work to decide for themselves whether to participate.

Experts argue that if the government begins to determine which regions are eligible for the scheme, it would amount to a return to selective welfare. India has already experienced the shortcomings of identity-based schemes such as the BPL (Below Poverty Line) system, where many of the truly poor are excluded while ineligible individuals often benefit. MGNREGA addressed this problem by eliminating identity-based eligibility criteria; the sole requirement was a willingness to work.

Another major concern is that the proposed changes reportedly shift nearly 40 percent of the scheme’s financial burden onto state governments. According to policy analysts, this could be a strategy to effectively weaken or dismantle MGNREGA without formally repealing it.

Most Indian states are already struggling with severe financial constraints. If the substantial costs of MGNREGA are added to existing responsibilities—such as healthcare, education, policing, infrastructure, and debt repayment—states may naturally become reluctant to implement the scheme effectively. Consequently, many states might reduce the number of workdays, delay wage payments, or deprioritise the programme altogether. Experts point out that MGNREGA succeeded precisely because it was a centrally funded and legally mandated scheme. Central responsibility ensured that vulnerable populations received a basic employment safety net, irrespective of the political will or fiscal capacity of individual states.

History demonstrates that whenever India has faced major economic or social crises, MGNREGA has acted as a lifeline for the rural poor. During the 2008 global financial crisis, when private-sector employment declined sharply, MGNREGA ensured a minimum income for millions of rural households. Similarly, during the COVID-19 pandemic, when a sudden nationwide lockdown forced millions of migrant workers to return to their villages, MGNREGA emerged as the only mechanism capable of providing immediate work and income.

Crucially, the scheme did not rely on complex eligibility verification processes, which enabled its rapid expansion during times of crisis. Experts argue that governments often lose valuable time designing new schemes during emergencies, whereas an existing framework like MGNREGA allows for swift and effective intervention. In this sense, MGNREGA functions not only as a social security measure but also as a vital tool for national crisis management.

The concerns surrounding MGNREGA are not solely economic; they are also deeply constitutional. According to legal experts, the Act represents a practical realisation of the constitutional principles of social justice and human dignity. Although the ‘right to work’ is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, the right to livelihood has been read into the right to life under Article 21 through judicial interpretation.

MGNREGA translated this constitutional vision into reality by asserting that the state’s role is not merely to dispense subsidies or charity, but to provide opportunities for dignified employment. This is why the scheme was often described as “not charity, but a right.” Weakening this law would send a clear message that the state is retreating from rights-based governance and reverting to a charity-based welfare model.

Civil society organisations and activist groups have described the proposed changes not as routine policy reform, but as an assault on decades of democratic struggle. They argue that MGNREGA was born out of a collective demand by citizens, social movements, and policy experts who believed that poverty alleviation should be pursued not only through economic growth, but also through guaranteed employment.

Experts warn that diluting this law would effectively silence the voices of millions of rural families for whom MGNREGA remains the last line of defence against destitution. The issue is not merely about wages; it concerns the rural economy, women’s empowerment, and overall social stability. A significant proportion of MGNREGA workers are women, for whom the scheme has provided economic independence, bargaining power within households, and social recognition.

Ultimately, the debate over MGNREGA raises a fundamental question about the nature of India’s welfare state. If governments begin to view rights-based schemes as fiscal burdens and seek to curtail them, social inequality and economic insecurity are likely to deepen. Abolishing or weakening MGNREGA may appear administratively convenient, but its long-term consequences could be profound and destabilising.

Such a move would not only push rural populations into greater distress but also erode public faith in democratic institutions. The need of the hour is for the government to recognise MGNREGA not as a “problem” to be managed, but as a “solution” to structural rural distress. Ultimately, MGNREGA is more than an employment programme—it symbolises an idea of India where every citizen has the right to live with dignity. Weakening this right would not merely mark the end of a law, but the gradual erosion of the very foundations of social justice upon which modern India was built.