Op-ed: Is the right to work fading under the new rural jobs law?
The new law promises 125 days of work, not 100. Why do critics say the right to work has weakened?
Published 1 September 2026. Written by Pratidin from the reports linked at the end; every fact checked by a separate review before publishing. How we work
An op-ed in The Hindu, 'The broken promise of the right to work', argues that the constitutional aspiration of a right to work is being hollowed out under the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Act, 2025 (VB-G RAM G). The Act came into force on 1 July 2026 and repealed the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), 2005. The op-ed traces the right to the Constituent Assembly, where it was placed among the Directive Principles in Article 41, and point to a steep fall in work generated in July and August 2026, the first two months of the new law, compared with earlier years.
The VB-G RAM G Act was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 16 December 2025 and received presidential assent on 21 December 2025. It promises 125 days of wage employment a year, against MGNREGA's 100. But it replaces demand-driven funding with normative allocations, with spending beyond them borne by States. Costs are shared 60:40 between the Centre and most States (90:10 for north-eastern and Himalayan States and UTs with legislature), whereas the Centre paid the full MGNREGA wage bill. States may pause work for up to 60 days in peak farm seasons. The central allocation for 2026-27 is ₹95,692.31 crore.
Other figures point the same way: the Samyukt Kisan Morcha, citing Rural Development Ministry data, said person-days in July and August fell from 29.77 crore in 2025 to 20.21 crore in 2026. The Centre says the law plugs loopholes in MGNREGA and pays wages faster by direct benefit transfer. On 21 August 2026 a Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, hearing Aruna Roy's petition on minimum and delayed wages, said the Constitution does not recognise the right to work as a fundamental right and asked the petitioners to file a fresh petition under the new Act.
Prelims facts
- The right to work is a Directive Principle under Article 41, not a fundamental right; Article 37 makes Directive Principles non-justiciable.
- The VB-G RAM G Act, 2025 replaced MGNREGA on 1 July 2026 and promises 125 days of wage employment a year.
- Costs are shared 60:40 between the Centre and most States (90:10 for north-eastern and Himalayan States), with normative allocations replacing demand-driven funding.
- States may pause work for up to 60 days a year in peak sowing and harvesting seasons.
- On 21 August 2026 the Supreme Court said the right to work is not a fundamental right and asked petitioners to challenge the new Act afresh.
Quick recall
- Which article directs the State to secure the right to work?
- Article 41, a Directive Principle, 'within the limits of its economic capacity and development'
- Which article says Directive Principles are not enforceable by courts?
- Article 37
- Days guaranteed under MGNREGA and under VB-G RAM G?
- Up to 100 days under MGNREGA; 125 days under VB-G RAM G
- When did VB-G RAM G come into force?
- 1 July 2026; MGNREGA was repealed the same day
- Centre-State cost sharing under VB-G RAM G for most States?
- 60:40 (90:10 for north-eastern and Himalayan States and UTs with legislature)
- Maximum agricultural-season pause under VB-G RAM G?
- Up to 60 days a year, notified by the State
- Which case read the right to livelihood into Article 21?
- Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985)
- Which case held below-minimum wages on relief works to be forced labour?
- Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan (1983), under Article 23
Prelims practice question
Consider the following statements about the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Act, 2025:
1. It guarantees 125 days of wage employment in a financial year to rural households whose adults volunteer for unskilled manual work.
2. The cost is shared 60:40 between the Centre and most States.
3. States may notify a period of up to 60 days a year during peak agricultural seasons when work is paused.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Show answer
Answer: (c) All three. All three are correct. The Act guarantees 125 days, shares costs 60:40 with most States (90:10 for north-eastern and Himalayan States and UTs with legislature, 100% central for UTs without legislature), and lets States notify up to 60 days of pause in peak sowing and harvesting seasons.
Use this in UPSC Mains: previous-year questions
Recurring theme: Rights-based welfare, the right to work and the design of rural employment guarantees
- How to use this
Use the shift from MGNREGA to VB-G RAM G to examine whether a rights-based guarantee survives capped allocations and cost shifting to States.
- The VB-G RAM G Act, 2025, in force from 1 July 2026, promises 125 days of work against MGNREGA's 100, but replaces demand-driven funding with normative allocations.
- Costs are shared 60:40 with most States (90:10 for north-eastern and Himalayan States), whereas the Centre paid the full MGNREGA wage bill; States may pause work for up to 60 days.
- The Samyukt Kisan Morcha, citing ministry data, says July-August person-days fell from 29.77 crore in 2025 to 20.21 crore in 2026; the Centre says the law plugs leakages.
- How to use this
Use the rural jobs law to show that the design of employment guarantees, not just their existence, decides how well they cushion the poor against unemployment.
- The new Act raises the promise to 125 days a year, with a central allocation of ₹95,692.31 crore for 2026-27.
- Critics say normative allocations, 60:40 cost sharing and a 60-day seasonal pause may ration work; reported person-days fell to 20.21 crore in July-August 2026 from 29.77 crore.
Mains practice question
The replacement of MGNREGA by the VB-G RAM G Act has revived the debate on the right to work. Examine whether the new law strengthens or weakens the constitutional goal under Article 41. (250 words)
Model answer
The right to work is a Directive Principle under Article 41, given legal force by MGNREGA (2005). Its replacement, the VB-G RAM G Act, 2025, in force from 1 July 2026, raises the promise to 125 days but changes the funding design.
What strengthens the guarantee
- More days: 125 days a year against MGNREGA's 100.
- Faster payment: wages by direct benefit transfer, weekly or within 15 days, with compensation for delay.
- Allocation: central allocation of ₹95,692.31 crore for 2026-27; the Centre says the law plugs MGNREGA's leakages.
What weakens it
- From demand to allocation: normative allocations replace demand-driven funding; spending beyond them falls on States, so work may be rationed.
- Cost shift: 60:40 sharing for most States, against the Centre's full wage bill earlier, strains weaker States.
- Seasonal pause: up to 60 days without work in peak farm seasons.
- Early data: the Samyukt Kisan Morcha, citing ministry data, reports person-days in July to August 2026 at 20.21 crore, against 29.77 crore a year earlier.
- Judicial stance: on 21 August 2026 the Supreme Court said work is not a fundamental right, though Olga Tellis (1985) links livelihood to Article 21.
Way forward
- Let allocations be revised mid-year when demand exceeds them.
- Protect States with low fiscal capacity through higher central shares.
- Keep social audits and gram sabha planning central.
- Publish real-time data on demand registered and work provided.
Whether VB-G RAM G realises Article 41 will depend less on the number of days promised than on whether work is actually available when it is demanded.
The basics
Why this matters
For twenty years, the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) gave every rural household a legal right to ask for up to 100 days of paid manual work a year. From 1 July 2026 it was replaced by the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Act, 2025, or VB-G RAM G, which promises 125 days but changes how the work is funded. An op-ed in The Hindu on 1 September 2026 argues that the promise of a 'right to work' is being hollowed out. To judge the debate you need the constitutional status of the right to work, the design of the two laws and how courts have read work and wages into fundamental rights.
A right in the Directive Principles
The Constitution does not make work a fundamental right. It is in the Directive Principles of State Policy, in Article 41 and the Directive Principles: the State shall, 'within the limits of its economic capacity and development', make effective provision for securing the right to work. Article 37 says these principles are not enforceable by any court but are 'fundamental in the governance of the country'. A law such as MGNREGA turns a directive into a legal entitlement.
- Enforceable in courts under Articles 32 and 226
- Include Article 21, the right to life and personal liberty
- Limit what the State may do
- Not enforceable by any court (Article 37)
- Include Article 41, the right to work within economic capacity
- Guide what the State should do in making laws
Two laws compared
- Up to 100 days of work per rural household per year
- Demand-driven: funds follow work demanded
- Centre paid the full wage bill
- 125 days of wage employment per year
- Normative allocations; spending beyond them borne by States
- Cost shared 60:40 between Centre and most States
- States may pause work up to 60 days in peak farm seasons
Read more in MGNREGA, 2005 and VB-G RAM G Act, 2025.
How courts have treated work and wages
Courts have not made work itself a fundamental right, but they have tied livelihood and fair wages to Part III. See Right to livelihood under Article 21.
- 1950Constitution places the right to work in Article 41, a Directive Principle
- 1983Sanjit Roy case: paying famine-relief workers below minimum wage held to be forced labour under Article 23
- 1985Olga Tellis case: right to livelihood read into Article 21
- 2005MGNREGA enacted, giving a statutory right to 100 days of work
- 21 December 2025President assents to the VB-G RAM G Act
- 1 July 2026VB-G RAM G comes into force and MGNREGA is repealed
Go deeper
In one line: An op-ed argues that the constitutional aspiration of a right to work, given legal form by MGNREGA, is being weakened under the VB-G RAM G Act, which replaced MGNREGA on 1 July 2026.
Why it matters for UPSC
The topic links GS2 (welfare schemes, Directive Principles, Centre-State finances) with GS3 (rural employment, inclusive growth) and GS4 (MGNREGA case studies). Prelims asks about Article 41, Article 37 and the design of employment schemes.
The core idea
The right to work is a Directive Principle under Article 41 and the Directive Principles, not a fundamental right. MGNREGA, 2005 made it a legal right to demand work. The VB-G RAM G Act, 2025 raises the promised days to 125 but moves to normative allocations and 60:40 cost sharing with most States. Courts have linked livelihood and fair wages to Part III, as explained in Right to livelihood under Article 21, but on 21 August 2026 the Supreme Court questioned whether the statutory job guarantee can be equated with Article 21.
Numbers and dates to remember
- MGNREGA: enacted 2005; up to 100 days per household
- VB-G RAM G: introduced in Lok Sabha 16 December 2025; assent 21 December 2025; in force 1 July 2026
- 125 days; 60:40 Centre-State (90:10 for north-eastern and Himalayan States and UTs with legislature; 100% Centre for UTs without legislature)
- Pause of up to 60 days in peak sowing and harvesting seasons
- Central allocation for 2026-27: ₹95,692.31 crore
- Supreme Court hearing in Aruna Roy's petition: 21 August 2026
Where to go next
- Article 41 and the Directive Principles: why work is a directive, not a fundamental right
- MGNREGA, 2005: the demand-driven guarantee that was replaced
- VB-G RAM G Act, 2025: what the new law changes
- Right to livelihood under Article 21: how courts linked work and wages to Part III
Go deeper: guarantee or allocation?
The op-ed's case. The op-ed argues that the right to work, debated in the Constituent Assembly and placed among the Directive Principles, found real form only when MGNREGA, 2005 let workers demand work and made funds follow that demand. They point to a steep fall in work generated in July and August 2026, the first two months under the new law, compared with earlier years, and read it as the promise being broken rather than kept.
Other data. The Samyukt Kisan Morcha, citing Rural Development Ministry figures, said 29.77 crore person-days were generated in July and August 2025 against 20.21 crore in the same months of 2026. Counts differ with the date and coverage of the data, but they point the same way.
The government's case. The Centre says the VB-G RAM G Act, 2025 plugs loopholes that existed in MGNREGA, raises the guarantee to 125 days, pays wages by direct benefit transfer on a weekly basis or within 15 days, and comes with a central allocation of ₹95,692.31 crore for 2026-27. A transition from one law to another can also depress numbers for some months.
The federal question. Under MGNREGA the Centre paid the full wage bill. Now most States pay 40% and bear spending beyond the normative allocation. Critics say the shift could weaken the guarantee and raise the financial burden on States.
The courts. On 21 August 2026 a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, hearing a petition by Aruna Roy on minimum and delayed wages, observed that the Constitution does not recognise the right to work as a fundamental right and asked the petitioners to file a fresh petition under the new Act. This sits alongside older rulings in Right to livelihood under Article 21.
Article 41 and the Directive Principles
Why work is a directive, not a fundamental right
In one line: Article 41 directs the State, within the limits of its economic capacity and development, to make effective provision for securing the right to work, to education and to public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement.
The idea from zero
Part IV of the Constitution (Articles 36 to 51) lists Directive Principles of State Policy. Article 37 says they are not enforceable by any court but are fundamental in the governance of the country, and the State must apply them in making laws. The framers placed social and economic goals such as work here because they depended on the resources of a poor new nation.
Why it is in the news
The op-ed revisits this choice: a right that is only a directive depends on laws like MGNREGA for real force. When the law changes, so does the strength of the right. The Supreme Court in August 2026 also noted that work is not a fundamental right.
Where to go next
MGNREGA, 2005
The demand-driven guarantee that was replaced
In one line: The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 gave every rural household the legal right to up to 100 days of unskilled manual work a year on demand.
How it worked
An adult member registered, received a job card and applied for work. If work was not given within 15 days, the State had to pay an unemployment allowance. Funding was demand-driven: the Centre paid the full wage bill and most of the material cost, so money was meant to follow the work people sought. Works were planned largely by gram panchayats, with social audits for accountability.
Why it is in the news
MGNREGA was repealed when the VB-G RAM G Act came into force on 1 July 2026. Critics say its demand-driven design was what made work a right rather than a scheme.
Where to go next
VB-G RAM G Act, 2025
What the new law changes
In one line: The Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Act, 2025 promises 125 days of wage employment a year to rural households, with shared funding and normative allocations.
Key features
- 125 days of wage employment per financial year for adults willing to do unskilled manual work
- Cost shared 60:40 between the Centre and most States; 90:10 for north-eastern and Himalayan States and UTs with legislature; 100% central for UTs without legislature
- Normative annual allocations; spending beyond them borne by States
- States may notify up to 60 days a year in peak sowing and harvesting seasons when work is paused
- Wages by direct benefit transfer, weekly or within 15 days of the muster roll closing
- In force from 1 July 2026; MGNREGA repealed
Where to go next
Right to livelihood under Article 21
How courts linked work and wages to Part III
In one line: Courts have not made work a fundamental right, but they have read the right to livelihood into Article 21 and treated underpayment of wages as forced labour under Article 23.
The key cases
In Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan (1983), the Supreme Court held that paying workers on famine-relief works less than the minimum wage amounts to forced labour prohibited by Article 23. In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), it held that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to livelihood, since no one can live without the means of living.
Why it is in the news
On 21 August 2026 the Supreme Court questioned whether the statutory rural job guarantee could be placed on the same footing as Article 21, and said the Constitution does not recognise the right to work as a fundamental right. Petitioners were asked to file afresh under the new law.
Where to go next
Take the 1 September 2026 quiz: 30 Prelims-style questions with answers