Supreme Court lauds scrapped MGNREGA scheme; calls it neither freebie nor exploitation

Supreme Court lauds scrapped MGNREGA scheme; calls it neither freebie nor exploitation Advocates Prashant Bhushan, Cheryl D'souza and Neha Rathi, appearing for Aruna Roy, urges the court to examine whether a law could prescribe minimum wages lower than the threshold determined by the State concerned.

Key points

• Advocates Prashant Bhushan, Cheryl D'Souza and Neha Rathi, appearing for Ms.
• While Chief Justice Kant observed that wages were usually linked to prevalent local conditions, justice Bagchi remarked a minimum wage threshold might risk shrinking employment opportunities.
• The Bench was hearing a petition filed by activist Aruna Roy seeking directions for the administration to pay delayed wages under the MGNREGA, along with compensation.
• Bhushan remarked the right to lead a dignified life is part of Article 21.
• The petition additionally sought to elevate the statutory guarantee of rural work to the status of a fundamental right under Article 21 (right to life) of the Constitution.

Meanwhile, the Bench was hearing a petition filed by activist Aruna Roy seeking directions for the administration to pay delayed wages under the MGNREGA, along with compensation. File Photo Credit: Special arrangement.

In practice, the Supreme Court on Friday (August 21, 2026) praised the repealed Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), calling it a "salutary scheme" that was neither a freebie nor an exploitation of rural workers.

For context, the court's accolade came against the backdrop of claims by civil rights groups that MGNREGA's successor, the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) or the VB-G RAM G Act, has seen a 50% decline in employment generation, despite an rise in guaranteed work days from 100 to 125 per household annually.

For context, the new law reflects a shift from a demand-driven, rights-based framework to a centrally controlled model. Additionally, the funding burden on States has climbed three-fold, shifting from a 90: 10 ratio to 60: 40.

"MGNREGA was a good, effective scheme. It did a wonderful job in rural areas and was implemented pan-India. It was neither a freebie nor exploitation, " Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, heading a three-judge Bench, orally observed.

Advocates Prashant Bhushan, Cheryl D'Souza and Neha Rathi, appearing for Ms. Roy, pressed the court to examine whether a law could prescribe minimum wages lower than the threshold determined by the State concerned.

Notably, the petition additionally sought to elevate the statutory guarantee of rural work to the status of a fundamental right under Article 21 (right to life) of the Constitution.

"The Constitution does not create the right to work a fundamental right. It is more a democratic aspiration under Part IV (Directive Principles of State Policy). To achieve that aspiration, the state formulates the policy by which work is provided at a graded, compensatory level. Should we treat it on par with Article 21?" Justice Joymalya Bagchi asked Mr. Bhushan.

Mr. Bhushan remarked the right to lead a dignified life is part of Article 21. "A dignified life requires you to obtain employment at minimum wages. Anything below minimum wages is forced labour, " he submitted.

Justice V. According to Mohana, the problems raised by Mr. Bhushan must be examined afresh in light of the new law, rather than under the MGNREGA. "We have to see fresh details, fresh statistics, " Justice Mohana remarked.

Mr. Bhushan submitted that States were required to provide almost half the funds under the new law. "The number of employments has come down by half. States have no funds, " he stated.

For context, the court asked him to file a new petition while disposing of the current one.

In short, supreme Court lauds scrapped MGNREGA scheme; calls it neither freebie nor exploitation is the central thread here, and readers can expect follow-up reporting as the picture becomes clearer.