The Big Question Before The Supreme Court
Imagine working hard under the hot sun, only to receive your wages months late, or getting paid less than the legal minimum wage. For millions of rural workers in India, this is a daily reality. Recently, the Supreme Court of India took up a massive legal question regarding this exact issue.
The Court was hearing a petition titled Aruna Roy v. Union of India. The main focus of the case is the payment of minimum wages and compensation for delayed wages to workers under government rural employment guarantee schemes.
But the hearing sparked a much larger debate. The judges asked a fundamental question: Should the right to work be treated as a basic Fundamental Right, just like the right to life and dignity?
Fundamental Rights vs. Directive Principles
To understand this case, we need to look at how the Constitution of India is structured. The Supreme Court Bench, comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana, pointed out a key legal distinction.
Currently, the Constitution does not recognize the “right to work” as a Fundamental Right. Fundamental Rights are listed in Part III of the Constitution. They are guaranteed to all citizens, and if they are violated, you can directly approach the courts for justice.
Instead, the right to work is placed under Part IV of the Constitution, known as the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP). These are guidelines or goals for the government to follow when making laws. As Justice Bagchi noted, the right to work is currently a “democratic aspiration.” The government tries to achieve this goal by creating policies and schemes to provide work, but it is not a legally enforceable right in the same way as the right to free speech or the right to life.
What The Law Says: The Power of Article 21
During the hearing, the Court debated whether statutory employment guarantees should be placed on the same level as Article 21. Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the protection of life and personal liberty. Over the years, the Supreme Court has expanded Article 21 to include the right to live with dignity.
If the right to work is elevated to the level of Article 21, the legal consequences would be massive. Justice Bagchi highlighted a major constitutional issue. If the right to work becomes a Fundamental Right, courts could issue a “mandamus” against the government. A mandamus is a formal court order commanding a public authority to perform its duty.
This means that even if the government faces a budget shortage and wants to reduce its social welfare activities, the courts could force them to keep providing jobs. Elevating a policy goal to an enforceable Fundamental Right changes how the government manages its finances and welfare schemes.
The Shift From MGNREGA to the New 2026 Law
The legal arguments in this case also had to address a major change in the law. For years, rural employment was governed by the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), which provided 100 days of guaranteed wage employment.
According to the facts presented in court, MGNREGA was replaced by a new law on July 1, 2026. The new scheme is called the Viksit Bharat–Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin), or the VB-G RAM G Act.
The new law brings some significant upgrades for rural workers. It guarantees up to 125 days of employment per rural household, which is 25 days more than the old scheme. It also legally ensures that the new wage rates cannot be lower than what was previously notified under MGNREGA. Following this, the central government increased the national average wage from ₹298.8 per day under the old law to ₹327.4 per day under the new law.
Is Paying Less Than Minimum Wage “Forced Labour”?
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioners, argued that despite the new law, the core issue of minimum wages still needs to be resolved. He stated that workers must be paid the minimum wages notified by their respective state governments.
To back up his point, he relied on earlier Supreme Court judgments. In past cases, the Court has ruled that making a person work for less than the legal minimum wage can amount to “forced labour.” Under the Indian Constitution, forced labour is strictly prohibited.
Bhushan argued that because the new VB-G RAM G Act refers back to the wage provisions of the old law, the Court should decide the minimum wage issue right now, without forcing the workers to start a brand new legal case from scratch.
The Minimum Wage Dilemma: More Money or More Jobs?
While the argument for higher wages sounds perfect in theory, CJI Surya Kant pointed out a harsh economic reality. If the government has a fixed amount of money for a welfare scheme (a fixed budget), raising the minimum wage might mean they can hire fewer people.
The Chief Justice explained that if a strict minimum wage threshold is imposed, the total amount of employment generated by the scheme might shrink. As he simply put it: “the size of the pie remains the same.” If each slice is bigger, fewer people get a slice.
Furthermore, the CJI noted that the Minimum Wages Act might not automatically apply to every single job created under these schemes. It depends heavily on the specific nature of the activities the workers are doing. If the work does not fall under an “industry” or a notified activity under the Minimum Wages Act, the strict rules of that Act might not apply. However, the CJI assured the petitioners that the Court wants to give a “liberal interpretation” to these social laws to help the poor.
What Happens Next?
Because the entire legal framework changed on July 1, 2026, with the introduction of the VB-G RAM G Act, the Supreme Court decided it could not proceed with the old petition. CJI Kant stated that the foundation of the old case had been overtaken by the new law.
To make a fair decision, the Court needs fresh details, new statistics, and updated facts about how the new 125-day scheme is actually being implemented on the ground. Recognizing this, Advocate Prashant Bhushan agreed to file a fresh petition. This new legal challenge will cover both the demand for state-notified minimum wages and compensation for any delayed payments under the new 2026 framework.
Why This Matters For You
Even if you do not work in a rural employment scheme, this case is deeply important for every Indian citizen. It touches upon how our Constitution balances the rights of the people with the financial realities of the government.
If the courts decide that welfare schemes are enforceable Fundamental Rights, it will completely change how laws are made and budgets are passed in India. It will test the limits of what the government is legally required to provide to its citizens.
The Takeaway: The Supreme Court is carefully weighing whether the right to work should be an enforceable Fundamental Right, balancing the need for fair minimum wages against the risk of shrinking job opportunities for the rural poor.
Story reported by Barandbench. This article is BareLaw’s independent explanation and analysis.
