A larger constitutional question concerning the status of the right to work has been raised before the Supreme Court, with the Bench examining whether employment guaranteed under rural welfare schemes can be placed on the same footing as the fundamental right to life and dignity under Article 21.
The issue was considered by a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana in Aruna Roy v. Union of India. The Court noted that the right to work has not been recognised as a fundamental right under the Constitution and has instead been placed among the obligations of the State under the Directive Principles of State Policy.
Justice Bagchi observed that the constitutional status of the right to work could have significant consequences for the State’s welfare obligations. A question was raised as to whether a constitutional mandate could eventually be issued requiring the continuation or implementation of employment schemes if the State were to reduce its social welfare activities.
The observations were made while a petition concerning minimum wages and compensation for delayed wage payments to workers under rural employment guarantee schemes was being considered.
Minimum Wage Question Comes Into Focus
The petition had originally concerned workers covered under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA). Two principal issues had been raised—whether compensation should be paid for delayed wages and whether workers could be paid less than the minimum wages notified by the respective States.
Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan submitted that the issues had not become infructuous merely because MGNREGA had subsequently been replaced by the Viksit Bharat–Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) (VB-G RAM G) Act.
The earlier issue concerning delayed payment of MGNREGA wages was noted by Chief Justice Kant to have already been dealt with in Swaraj Abhiyan v. Union of India. It was observed that any failure to comply with the directions issued in that judgment could give rise to a fresh cause of action.
More Wages, Fewer Jobs? Court Flags the Practical Dilemma
A practical difficulty arising from the demand for mandatory minimum wages was also highlighted by the Bench. It was observed that if a higher wage threshold were imposed while the overall resources available for an employment scheme remained unchanged, fewer workers could ultimately be provided employment.
The Court indicated that the balance between the wage payable to an individual worker and the number of persons who could be provided employment would therefore have to be examined.
The applicability of the Minimum Wages Act was also linked by the Court to the nature of the work being undertaken under the employment scheme. It was observed that the statutory framework governing minimum wages would depend upon whether the activities concerned fell within the relevant categories covered by the legislation.
At the same time, the need for a liberal interpretation of social welfare legislation was acknowledged by the Bench.
New Law Brings a Fresh Legal Framework
MGNREGA was replaced by the VB-G RAM G Act with effect from July 1, 2026. Under the new framework, up to 125 days of employment per rural household has been guaranteed, compared with the earlier 100-day guarantee under MGNREGA.
It has also been provided that the wage rate notified under the new legislation cannot be lower than the wage rate earlier notified under Section 6 of MGNREGA. New wage rates were subsequently notified under the revised framework.
Bhushan submitted that the minimum wage issue continued to remain relevant under the new legislation. Reliance was also placed on earlier Supreme Court decisions in which payment below the prescribed minimum wage had been treated as potentially amounting to forced labour.
Fresh Petition to Be Filed
The Court, however, indicated that the statutory framework governing the original petition had substantially changed following the replacement of MGNREGA. It was observed that fresh factual material and implementation data concerning the new scheme would be required before the issues could be effectively examined.
The possibility of deciding the minimum wage dispute within the existing proceedings was therefore not accepted.
Bhushan eventually agreed to file a fresh petition. The proposed proceedings will address both minimum wage entitlement and compensation for delayed payments under the VB-G RAM G framework.
The proceedings have thus brought the debate beyond wages and employment schemes, placing before the Court a larger constitutional question: can the right to work, presently reflected through the Directive Principles, eventually be transformed into an enforceable fundamental right?
We strive to make a lasting impact on India’s policy and planning landscape through fair, unbiased, and incisive research based journalism.
But we can’t do it alone.
Together, we can create a better India, where policies are fair, planning is unbiased, and the truth prevails. Your contribution matters, and we shall be immensely grateful for your support.