The Supreme Court on Friday questioned whether the statutory employment guarantee for rural workers could be placed on the same constitutional footing as the fundamental right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana made the observations while hearing Aruna Roy v. Union of India, concerning payment of minimum wages and compensation for delayed wages to workers under the rural employment guarantee scheme. The Bench noted that the Constitution does not recognise the right to work as a fundamental right, but places it among the State’s obligations under the Directive Principles of State Policy.
Justice Bagchi observed that the right to work is a democratic aspiration under Part IV of the Constitution, which the State seeks to advance through policies providing employment and compensation. He questioned whether such a right should be elevated to the level of Article 21.
The Court also flagged the wider implications of recognising an enforceable fundamental right to employment, particularly if the State subsequently reduces its social welfare measures. Justice Bagchi questioned whether such an interpretation could result in courts issuing mandatory directions requiring the government to continue implementing employment schemes such as MGNREGA or the newly introduced Viksit Bharat–Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) (VB-G RAM G) scheme.
The petition also raised the question of whether workers under the employment guarantee scheme could be paid less than the minimum wages notified by the respective States.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan argued that the issue survived despite the replacement of MGNREGA by the VB-G RAM G Act from July 1, 2026. He submitted that State-notified minimum wages must be paid and relied on earlier Supreme Court judgments holding that payment below minimum wages could amount to forced labour.
Chief Justice Surya Kant, however, highlighted the practical consequences of imposing a higher wage threshold. He observed that if the available resources remain unchanged, increasing wages could reduce the number of workers who can be provided employment.
The CJI also said that the applicability of minimum wage legislation would depend upon the nature of work undertaken under the employment scheme, while emphasising the need for a liberal interpretation of social welfare legislation.
The Court noted that the issue of delayed payment of MGNREGA wages had already been addressed in Swaraj Abhiyan v. Union of India, and any failure to implement that judgment would give rise to a fresh cause of action.
The VB-G RAM G Act guarantees up to 125 days of employment per rural household, compared with 100 days under MGNREGA. It also stipulates that wages cannot be lower than the rates earlier notified under MGNREGA.
Bhushan ultimately agreed to file a fresh petition addressing minimum wages as well as compensation for delayed payments under the new statutory framework. The Court indicated that fresh data and statistics on implementation would be necessary for adjudicating the issues.
The post Supreme Court questions whether right to work under rural employment scheme can be equated with Article 21 appeared first on India Legal.