Click the Play button to listen to article

The Supreme Court recently disposed of a 2015 PIL pertaining to payment of compensation for delayed payments to workers in terms of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MNREGA).  

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana observed that the issues raised in the PIL were covered by the judgment in Swaraj Abhiyan case. Yet, considering the submissions of Advocate Prashant Bhushan (for petitioners), it gave the petitioners liberty to file a fresh petition with regard to provisions of the Viksit Bharat-Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Act, 2025 (the VB-G RAM G Act, which replaced the MNREGA Act). 

To recap, the PIL raised two issues - payment of compensation for delayed wages under the MNREGA, and grant of state-prescribed minimum wages rather than the minimum wage prescribed under the Act. 

At the outset of the hearing, Justice Mohana noted that the VB-G RAM G Act replaced the erstwhile framework and MNREGA was no longer there. 

Bhushan however underlined that the new Act refers to MNREGA regarding minimum wages. He argued that the Supreme Court has held that minimum wages prescribed by states have to be paid, else it would amount to forced labor.

"issue that survives is whether minimum wages notified by the states have to be paid. In Swaraj Abhiyan, the Court had said that the payments should be made, but they have still not made . Employment on pan-India scale has dropped to half under the new Act and it requires that 50% of the funds be provided by states. New Act says that a floor minimum wage will be notified, which cannot be less than what was provided under the MNREGA. Rs. 300 are being paid under the new Act", Bhushan contended. 

In response, Justice Bagchi remarked that under the Constitution, right to work is not a fundamental right. "It is more of a democratic aspiration under Part IV. To achieve that aspiration, the state formulates policy, where one is provided a graded compensatory level. Should we trade it on par with Article 18 rigor? That is a a very big question which we need to answer. Because if we do that, the state contracts its social welfare activities, can we issue a mandamus and say that you have to implement MNREGA or VB-G RAM G Act?", the judge said to Bhushan.

The counsel responded that the Court held dignified life as part of Article 21 rights and dignified life requires that one atleast gets paid the minimum wage in case of employment. 

Ultimately, the bench told Bhushan that if so required, the petitioners can file a fresh petition challenging the provisions of the new Act.

Notably, the CJI lauded the MNREGA as a welfare scheme, but said it would be difficult to examine the issue raised in a PIL, without any aggrieved persons having come forward. 

"people in rural areas really appreciated MNREGA. there were thousands and millions of people who had no source of livelihood. So, with a view to provide a very respectful manner of earning livelihood, that you will work and then you will earn...this scheme was such a comprehensive scheme to provide everyone in the village so the principle of minimum back wages may be realistic approach knowing the object of the scheme at that time...MNREGA did a wonderful job in the rural areas...it was a very selfless scheme, a good, effective welfare scheme. It was not a freebie kind of scheme. Nor a case of exploitation", the CJI said.

When Bhushan again stressed that the Court must examine the provisions of the new Act, the CJI categorially said that the same cannot be done in the present case. "[If] Some petition will come then definitely we will examine", the CJI said. 

Case : ARUNA ROY  AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA WP(C) No. 768/2015

Tags: