Karnataka to approach SC seeking permission to continue MGNREGA

The Karnataka Cabinet resolved to petition the Supreme Court for permission to continue implementing MGNREGA within the state after Parliament repealed the l...

What Happened

The Karnataka Cabinet resolved to petition the Supreme Court for permission to continue implementing MGNREGA within the state after Parliament repealed the law in December 2025 through the Viksit Bharat–Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Act, commonly referred to as the VB-G RAM G Act.
Karnataka contends that the Centre repealed MGNREGA without adequate consultation with states, which had co-implemented the scheme as a Centrally Sponsored Scheme (CSS), and without putting in place a functional alternative framework.
As of the date of the Cabinet decision, the Central Government had neither issued an operative notification under the VB-G RAM G Act nor allocated fresh funds for the replacement scheme's implementation.
The Centre has only permitted continuation of pre-existing ("spillover") MGNREGA projects without authorising new action plans or fresh fund releases.
The state is seeking judicial authorisation to formulate and implement its own rural employment action plan for FY 2026–27 under the existing MGNREGA framework while the constitutional challenge is heard.

Static Topic Bridges

MGNREGA — The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005

MGNREGA (enacted as the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005; renamed in 2009) is landmark demand-driven social legislation that established a legal right to employment for rural households.

Core guarantee: At least 100 days of unskilled manual wage employment per financial year to every rural household whose adult member volunteers to do manual work. (In hilly/notified tribal areas, 150 days in some states.)
Wage structure: Wages are notified state-wise by the Central Government; the 60:40 wage-to-material expenditure ratio is mandated by Schedule I.
Unemployment Allowance: If work is not provided within 15 days of application, the state government must pay an unemployment allowance (one-third to one-half of the wage rate).
Schedule I rights: Includes the right to work within 5 km of the household, equal wages for men and women, at least one-third of beneficiaries to be women, and provision of crèche/shade at worksites.
Social Audit: Mandatory social audit of all works by the Gram Sabha — a pioneering accountability mechanism.
Funding: Central government bears 100% of unskilled wage cost, 75% of material cost; states bear 25% material cost + administrative costs.
As of its repeal, MGNREGA had generated over 3.5 billion person-days of employment annually in peak years.

Connection to this news: Karnataka's petition is premised on the argument that MGNREGA-created rights — particularly the right to employment within 15 days — cannot be extinguished without a functional replacement, making the repeal's implementation constitutionally problematic until the new Act's rules are notified.

Centrally Sponsored Schemes (CSS) and Centre-State Relations

MGNREGA was structured as a Centrally Sponsored Scheme (CSS) — a category of public programmes where the Centre sets policy, provides the dominant funding share, and states co-implement on the ground.

CSS are funded jointly from the Consolidated Fund of India (Centre) and state budgets. They fall in the Concurrent List (Schedule VII) or are implemented through Central directions under Article 282 (grants for public purposes).
States must follow Central guidelines for CSS but also depend on their own administrative machinery for delivery — creating co-dependence.
The Finance Commission periodically reviews CSS rationalisation; the 15th Finance Commission recommended reducing the number of CSS and increasing states' flexibility.
Karnataka's grievance specifically highlights the "no consultation" claim, reflecting the broader federal tension over Centre unilaterally redesigning or repealing CSS without consulting implementing states.
The NITI Aayog Governing Council is the formal platform for Centre-State consultation on such policy changes, though its decisions are not legally binding.

Connection to this news: The case raises a structural question about whether states have an enforceable claim when the Centre repeals a CSS that states have built administrative and fiscal capacity around, especially when no replacement framework is operational.

Parliament's Power to Make and Repeal Laws — Articles 245–248

The Centre's authority to enact and repeal MGNREGA flows from constitutional provisions dividing legislative competence between Parliament and State Legislatures.

Article 245: Parliament may make laws for the whole or any part of India; State Legislatures for their respective states.
Article 246: Distributes legislative subjects among three lists — Union List (List I), State List (List II), and Concurrent List (List III) of the Seventh Schedule.
Entry 23, Concurrent List: "Social security and social insurance; employment and unemployment" — this is the entry under which MGNREGA was enacted, giving Parliament competence.
Article 254: In case of inconsistency between Central and State laws on a Concurrent List subject, the Central law prevails (with the proviso that Presidential assent can protect State laws).
Parliament's power to repeal its own legislation is inherent and absolute — MGNREGA's repeal was constitutionally valid on its face. Karnataka's challenge is procedural/equitable (no replacement + no consultation), not a challenge to Parliament's bare power to repeal.

Connection to this news: Karnataka cannot argue Parliament lacked power to repeal MGNREGA — it clearly did under Article 246 read with Entry 23 of the Concurrent List. The state's stronger argument lies in the gap between repeal and operationalisation of the replacement, and the resulting vacuum in guaranteed employment rights.

Federalism — States' Right to Challenge Central Legislation in the Supreme Court

The Indian Constitution provides states with a specific judicial remedy to challenge Union actions that affect their rights.

Article 131: The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over disputes between the Centre and one or more states, or between states — making it the appropriate forum for Karnataka's petition.
Under Article 131, states can challenge Union laws on grounds of violation of constitutional provisions, including federal balance and fundamental rights of citizens administered by the state.
The Supreme Court has, in landmark judgments (e.g., State of West Bengal v. Union of India; S.R. Bommai v. Union of India), affirmed that federalism is a basic feature of the Constitution — inviolable even through ordinary legislation.
States cannot be reduced to "agents of the Centre" (Sarkaria Commission language): where a CSS creates enforceable entitlements, its sudden abolition without transition raises questions of legitimate expectations.

Connection to this news: Karnataka's approach to the Supreme Court under Article 131 is the constitutionally correct mechanism. The state is essentially arguing that the repeal, without a functional replacement, has created an employment rights vacuum that disproportionately harms its rural population — a rights-based federalism argument.

VB-G RAM G Act — The Proposed Successor Framework

The Viksit Bharat–Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Act (VB-G RAM G Act) was passed by Parliament in December 2025 as the replacement for MGNREGA, aligned with the Viksit Bharat 2047 development vision.

The Act reportedly broadens the scope beyond unskilled manual work to include livelihood-linked skill development and enterprise support components.
However, as of May 2026, the Central Government has not issued the operative notification (commencement notification or subordinate rules) needed to bring the new framework into full effect.
Without Central notification, states lack the legal and fiscal framework needed to launch new action plans under the successor Act.
Karnataka's cabinet notes specifically that "there is no new action plan" authorised and no funds released for FY 2026–27.

Connection to this news: The implementation gap between MGNREGA's repeal and VB-G RAM G Act's operationalisation is the crux of Karnataka's petition — it is this vacuum, not the Act itself, that Karnataka is challenging in the Supreme Court.

Key Facts & Data

MGNREGA enacted in 2005 (renamed in 2009); repealed by Parliament in December 2025 through the VB-G RAM G Act.
Core guarantee: 100 days of unskilled manual employment per household per financial year.
Work must be provided within 15 days of application; failing which, unemployment allowance is mandatory.
Women quota under MGNREGA: at least one-third of total beneficiaries.
Funding ratio: Centre pays 100% unskilled wages + 75% material costs; states pay 25% material + administration.
Legal basis for Centre's power to legislate on employment: Entry 23, Concurrent List (Seventh Schedule).
Karnataka's remedy: Supreme Court under Article 131 (original jurisdiction in Centre-State disputes).
Federalism is a basic feature of the Constitution (reaffirmed in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, 1994).
Social audit under MGNREGA is conducted by the Gram Sabha — a direct accountability tool.
At peak, MGNREGA generated over 3.5 billion person-days of employment annually.