0
0
Author: Ritika Pal
ABSTRACT
The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act of 2005 (MGNREGA) is one of the most remarkable policies ever made in India, switching the emphasis on welfare to a rights-based approach that allows every rural worker to claim their employment right through the law. Though the act has been constantly criticized for its fiscal burden, inefficiency, and politics, it legally still gives a stronghold for social justice, livelihood security, and participatory democracy. This article presents the idea that MGNREGA’s challenges are more a result of the inefficiencies in implementation and strict allocations than weak legislation. The article examines the historic constitutional provisions, case laws, and governance mechanisms to conclude that preserving the democratic and constitutional promise of the Act requires reform and a stronger political commitment—not repeal.
Introduction:
The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005, or MGNREGA, remains one of the most ambitious social security acts in the Indian Republic. Introduced with a vision to ensure at least 100 days of wage employment in rural areas, MGNREGA was supposed to be a safeguard against poverty, migrating poverty, or unemployment. But with the passing of nearly two decades, this act too has reached a decisive point in time. Financial apprehensions, charges of inefficiency, and politicizing have culminated in demands for toning down or striking down this act altogether. This blog would investigate whether the act has outlived itself or if the actual problem still remains in implementing it efficiently.
MGNREGA: From Welfare to Legal Entitlement:
Unlike other poverty alleviation programmes, the MGNREGA is not just a scheme but a statutory right. The statute has converted employment-a discretionary benefit-into a legal right of the rural citizen to insist on work from the State. Such a rights-based approach is in spirit with the letter and intent underlying Article 41 of the Constitution of India, which directs the State vis-à-vis securing for its citizens the right to work within the limits of its economic capacity. The MGNREGA further strengthens the wider constitutional vision of social justice and dignity under Article 21, since livelihood is inextricably linked with the right to life. By legally obliging employment within a fortnight from demand-or instead, unemployment allowance-the Act places accountability on the State and makes governance justiciable rather than charitable. This is the legal architecture that sets MGNREGA apart from earlier rural employment experiments and accounts for its continuing relevance in the welfare architecture in India.
Ground Realities: Employment Security vs Administrative Bottlenecks:
Though it has a very sound legal framework, the story of the implementation of MGNREGA is quite complex. Delayed payment of wages has remained one of the most enduring problems in the implementation of MGNREGA. It has happened many a time where wages have had to be waited for weeks or even months. The growing dependence on digital gadgets such as Aadhaar payment and the National Mobile Monitoring System (NMMS) has widened the digital divide. Technology has been aimed at combating corruption and increasing transparency; however, its inability to identify eligible recipients through biometric authentication, lack of smartphones, and poor connectivity has left eligible beneficiaries out. There appears to be an emerging disparity between the demand for employment and employment supplied. In different states, employment creation, despite the demand existing, is limited by budget or governmental reluctance. This type of bottleneck creates the impression that the Act is inefficient, where in truth the challenge lies in the implementation of the law rather than the law itself.
MGNREGA and Cooperative Federalism: A Constitutional Stress Test:
MGNREGA is a scheme that tests the constitutionality of India’s model of cooperative federalism because it deals with issues relating to legislative power, fiscal federalism, and administrative accountability. MGNREGA was created under Parliament’s competence under Entry 23 of the Concurrent List (social security and social insurance), the act places the primary financial obligation on the Union, but States and Panchayati Raj Institutions are responsible for implementation. The Ministry of Rural Development data shows that delays in payment of wages have often coincided with non-release of funds from the Centre, resulting in arrears of more than ₹10,000 crore in several financial years. The non-release of funds leads to the violation of statutory rights under Section 3(3) of the Act which provides for payment of wages within fifteen days. In a case Swaraj Abhiyan v. Union of India (2016), the Supreme Court declared that non-payment of wages under MGNREGA is a violation of Article 21 and it cannot be argued that statutory rights can be diluted due to budgetary constraints. The Court went on to say that, by treating MGNREGA as a discretionary expenditure and not a legal obligation, the Centre is acting in a manner that erodes decentralisation. The Court further criticised the Centre for treating MGNREGA as a discretionary expenditure rather than a legal obligation. The erosion of decentralisation is equally evident, as Panchayats are often denied real planning autonomy envisaged under Sections 13–15 of the Act. Thus, MGNREGA’s governance failures reflect not legislative infirmity, but a breakdown of cooperative federalism, where constitutional responsibility is fragmented without enforceable fiscal accountability.
Fiscal Burden or Economic Multiplier?
Another persuasive argument against the MGNREGA is that it is a burden on the exchequer. It has been termed a “cost with diminishing returns.” The other argument that it overlooks is that the program acts as a stabilizer in the economy, especially in times of crisis. MGNREGA has always worked as a shock-absorbing mechanism during drought conditions, agrarian crisis situations, and especially during the pandemic situation brought on by the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic, as MGNREGA then became a life-saver for the migrant workers who migrated to the countryside. The money that is earned from MGNREGA gets immediately absorbed into the economy. In addition, the assets developed through the scheme, such as water conservation, rural roads, and soil improvement, will serve to enhance the long-run productivity of the rural areas. In fact, when the program is looked at as a whole, MGNREGA might be termed neither a welfare expenditure program nor a development program.
Scrapping MGNREGA: Constitutional and Legal Implications:
Scrapping or drastically diluting MGNREGA has raised serious constitutional and legal issues. Once the State confers a statutory right, its arbitrary withdrawal can infringe the doctrine of legitimate expectation, particularly when millions depend upon it for survival. Indian courts have, over time, continued to expand the ambit of socio-economic rights under Article 21, considering livelihood as the core aspect of human dignity. Any attempt to dismantle MGNREGA, without offering an equally efficacious alternative, may therefore invite judicial intervention on the grounds of violating reasonableness, non-arbitrariness, and proportionality. More importantly, being an Act of Parliament, the MGNREGA cannot be undone either through executive neglect or budgetary starvation. Weakening the implementation without formal repeal runs the risk of undermining parliamentary sovereignty and constitutional governance.
Political Narrative vs Policy Performance:
The MGNREGA has gradually transformed into a politically contested arena. While it has been seen as a “symbol of inclusive governance” by some, others have seen it as “entitlement politics.” Centre-State relationships are also adding to its complexities, with some states causing performance to slump by accusing the Centre of late disbursement of funds. Corruption charges are often referred to in an attempt to discredit the scheme. However, scholarly work and social audit reports have indicated that leakages do exist but are in no way specific to MGNREGA and are often exaggerated in the political discourse. It may be noted that the social audit process in MGNREGA is among the most effective mechanisms of accountability. The issue, therefore, is not with the intention of the scheme itself, but with the narrative that gets the better of facts. The truth about policy analysis is that it cannot be based on ideology.
Conclusion:
MGNREGA is today at a juncture not because it has faltered, but because it forces the government to face its constitutional obligations. Abolishing MGNREGA would not ensure that rural poverty and unemployment are addressed,but rather, it would simply ensure that millions of Indians lose access to a safety net that is legally binding. An improvement in MGNREGA would emphasize India’s adherence to social justice, dignity, and development. The challenge, therefore, is not whether India can afford the MGNREGA, but whether it can do without the right to work. Apart from its welfare aspect, MGNREGA also signifies the commitment towards a “rights-based programme” and the strengthening of democratic accountability and empowerment of rural societies. The program is an effective support system during economic crises, climatic extremities, and rural uncertainty in general. Instead of abolishing the program, it is better to work towards strengthening it and increasing the transparency, amount allocated to the program, and the efficiency of its implementation. The strengthening of MGNREGA will prove beneficial to the rural population and will also ensure the vision of “equality and social justice” through the means of “inclusive growth” and the reduction of migration pressure.
