Karnataka set to approach SC to implement MGNREGA for this year

The Karnataka government announced its decision to approach the Supreme Court seeking permission to continue implementing MGNREGA for the current financial y...

What Happened

The Karnataka government announced its decision to approach the Supreme Court seeking permission to continue implementing MGNREGA for the current financial year.
MGNREGA has been replaced at the Centre by the Viksit Bharat – Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) (VB-G RAM-G) Act, 2025, introduced in Lok Sabha on December 16, 2025.
However, the new legislation has not yet been notified for implementation; rules, guidelines, and operational mechanisms have not been framed.
The Central government permitted only the completion of pending and spillover works under the old scheme without releasing fresh grants.
Karnataka argues that this transitional gap — between MGNREGA's replacement and VB-G RAM-G's operationalisation — constitutes a policy vacuum that is disrupting rural wage employment for thousands of workers.
The state also plans to legally challenge the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the VB-G RAM-G Act itself, particularly the new Centre-State cost-sharing model.

Static Topic Bridges

MGNREGA, 2005 — The Right to Work Framework

The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (notified September 7, 2005; implemented February 2006) was a landmark social legislation that created a statutory, demand-driven right to wage employment in rural India. It was the world's largest employment guarantee programme.

Section 3 of MGNREGA: Guaranteed at least 100 days of unskilled manual wage employment per rural household per financial year — a legally enforceable right, not a discretionary benefit.
Section 7: If work was not provided within 15 days of demand, the state was obligated to pay an unemployment allowance, creating a fiscal incentive for compliance.
Wage payments to be made on a weekly basis or within a fortnight of work done (Section 3(3)).
Funding model: Wages were 100% centrally funded; material and administrative costs were shared (Centre: State in 60:40 ratio, and 90:10 for NE states).
Constitutional basis: Article 41 (DPSP) — "The State shall, within the limits of its economic capacity and development, make effective provision for securing the right to work."
Beneficiaries: Any adult member of a rural household willing to do unskilled manual work could apply.

Connection to this news: Karnataka's petition is premised on the argument that MGNREGA's Section 3 right to work — even if the parent Act is being replaced — cannot be suspended in a legal vacuum; workers have continuing claims the state cannot ignore.

VB-G RAM-G Act, 2025 — Key Changes and Controversies

The Viksit Bharat – Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) (VB-G RAM-G) Act, 2025 was introduced in the Lok Sabha on December 16, 2025, and replaces MGNREGA. While it retains the guarantee of employment, it alters several structural features.

Enhanced employment guarantee: 125 days per rural household per year (up from 100 days under MGNREGA).
Funding model: Introduces Centre-State wage cost sharing, departing from MGNREGA's fully central wage funding — states now bear a share of wage costs, shifting fiscal burden.
Sections 6(1) and 6(2): Allow states to suspend work for up to 60 days during agricultural seasons (sowing and harvesting) to prevent diversion of farm labour.
Weekly wage payment provision retained.
Implementation status as of May 2026: The Act has been passed but rules have not been notified; no operational guidelines or disbursement mechanisms are in place.
Karnataka's core objection: The shift in wage-cost burden to states is fiscally regressive and the implementation gap leaves rural workers without any safety net.

Connection to this news: Karnataka's legal challenge targets both the transitional vacuum (no operational replacement in place) and the structural shift (states now sharing wage costs), which it argues violates the spirit of cooperative federalism.

Article 41 and Directive Principles — The Constitutional Basis for Employment Guarantee

Article 41 is a Directive Principle of State Policy (Part IV of the Constitution) directing the State to make effective provision for securing the right to work, to education, and to public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness, and disablement.

DPSPs are non-justiciable under Article 37 — citizens cannot directly sue the state for violating Article 41 — but courts have read them as interpretive guides.
The Supreme Court has held in Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993) and related cases that DPSPs can be used to interpret the scope of Fundamental Rights.
MGNREGA was Parliament's chosen instrument to fulfil Article 41; its replacement without a seamless transition arguably creates a gap in this constitutional obligation.
Article 38 (State to secure a social order) and Article 43 (living wage for workers) are related DPSPs relevant to rural employment.

Connection to this news: Karnataka's petition effectively asks the Supreme Court to direct the Centre to either implement VB-G RAM-G operationally or allow MGNREGA to continue in the interim, invoking the state's constitutional duty toward rural workers under Article 41.

Centre-State Relations and Article 252 — Parliament Legislating for States

Labour is a Concurrent List subject (Entry 23 of the Seventh Schedule) under which both Parliament and state legislatures can legislate. When Parliament enacts a law on a Concurrent List subject, it prevails over inconsistent state laws under Article 254. MGNREGA and its replacement are Parliamentary laws operative across all states.

Concurrent List (List III): Both Parliament and State Legislatures can legislate; in case of repugnancy, the Central law prevails (Article 254).
Employment guarantee schemes under MGNREGA operated as Centrally Sponsored Schemes — requiring state co-participation in implementation.
A state government cannot unilaterally continue to implement a repealed Central Act; it requires judicial permission or a Central extension order — hence Karnataka's recourse to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court can grant interim directions permitting continuation of the old scheme until the new one is operationally ready, under its Article 142 powers (power to do complete justice).

Connection to this news: Karnataka's approach to the Supreme Court is constitutionally necessary — it cannot simply continue MGNREGA on its own authority after Parliament has replaced it; only a court order can bridge the gap.

Key Facts & Data

MGNREGA enacted: 2005; implemented: February 2006.
MGNREGA guarantee: 100 days per household per year.
VB-G RAM-G Act introduced in Lok Sabha: December 16, 2025.
VB-G RAM-G guarantee: 125 days per household per year.
MGNREGA wage funding: 100% Central; VB-G RAM-G: Centre-State shared.
Constitutional basis for employment guarantee: Article 41 (DPSP, Part IV).
Labour is a Concurrent List subject: Entry 23, Seventh Schedule.
Article 142: Supreme Court's power to pass orders to do complete justice — the legal basis for interim relief Karnataka seeks.
MGNREGA was the world's largest employment guarantee programme, covering approximately 15 crore households at its peak.
VB-G RAM-G seasonal suspension: Up to 60 days allowed during sowing/harvesting seasons.