As we noted in our recent coverage on rural employment schemes, the Supreme Court has been debating whether the right to work is a fundamental right. Now, the Court has officially closed that 2015 public interest litigation (PIL). However, it has given the petitioners the green light to file a fresh legal challenge against the brand-new law that recently replaced MNREGA.
The original case, Aruna Roy and Ors. v. Union of India, was filed in 2015. It demanded compensation for delayed MNREGA wages. It also argued that rural workers should get the minimum wage set by their respective state governments, rather than a lower flat wage set by the central government.
A Supreme Court bench, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant alongside Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, noted that these older issues were already settled in a previous judgment known as the Swaraj Abhiyan case. Therefore, the old PIL was disposed of.
Enter The New Law: VB-G RAM G Act, 2025
During the hearing, Justice V Mohana pointed out a major factual change: the old MNREGA framework no longer exists. It has been officially replaced by the Viksit Bharat-Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Act, 2025 (VB-G RAM G Act).
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioners, raised urgent concerns about this new law. He argued that employment under the new scheme has dropped by half across India. He also pointed out that the new Act shifts a heavy financial burden, requiring states to provide 50% of the funds.
Currently, workers are being paid a floor wage of Rs. 300 under the new Act. Bhushan argued this is still not aligned with the higher minimum wages prescribed by individual states. He reminded the Court of its own past rulings, which state that paying a person less than the legal minimum wage amounts to “forced labor.”
What The Law Says: Right To Work vs. Welfare Policies
The courtroom debate touched upon core constitutional principles regarding citizen rights and government duties.
- Directive Principles (Part IV of the Constitution): Justice Bagchi clarified that under the Indian Constitution, the “right to work” is not a strict Fundamental Right. Instead, it falls under Part IV as a “Directive Principle of State Policy.” This means it is a democratic aspiration that the government should try to achieve through welfare policies, but citizens cannot simply demand a job from the state as an absolute right.
- Right to Life (Article 21): In response, the petitioners argued that Article 21 (Right to Life) includes the right to live with dignity. Earning at least a basic minimum wage is essential for a dignified life.
- Mandamus: Justice Bagchi questioned whether the Court has the power to issue a mandamus—a formal judicial order commanding a public authority to do its duty—to force the state to implement welfare schemes in a specific way. He warned that if courts strictly enforce welfare policies like fundamental rights, the government might shrink its social welfare activities altogether due to budget limits.
“MNREGA Was Not A Freebie”
While closing the old case, CJI Surya Kant took a moment to praise the historical legacy of MNREGA. He called it a “wonderful job” that provided a respectful livelihood to millions of people in rural areas who had no other source of income.
“It was a very selfless scheme, a good, effective welfare scheme. It was not a freebie kind of scheme. Nor a case of exploitation,” the CJI observed, noting that it allowed villagers to earn their wages respectfully through hard work.
What Happens Next
Because the old MNREGA law has been replaced, the Court ruled that it cannot examine the rules of the new 2025 Act within a 2015 case file. The CJI stated that the court needs an actual “aggrieved person” to come forward under the new law.
However, the bench officially allowed the petitioners the liberty to file a brand-new petition. If a fresh case is filed challenging the wages and funding structure of the VB-G RAM G Act, the Supreme Court will examine it.
The Takeaway: The Supreme Court acknowledges the vital importance of rural employment schemes but maintains a strict line on judicial limits, requiring citizens to file fresh legal challenges for new laws rather than dragging out outdated cases.
Story reported by Supreme Court – High Court – Legal Breaking News | Live Law India. This article is BareLaw’s independent explanation and analysis.
📲 Get every BareLaw story on Telegram — simple legal news, 5 times a day, free: t.me/barelaw
