The broken promise of the right to work
A new rural employment law, replacing the two-decade-old rural jobs guarantee framework, received Presidential assent in December 2025, restructuring how rural wage employment is delivered.
The new framework promises 125 days of work per rural household annually, an increase over the earlier 100-day entitlement, but ties employment to prior availability of approved works and central government notification of eligible areas.
The funding pattern shifts from full central funding of wage costs to a shared 60:40 Centre-state split for standard states (90:10 for special category states), altering the fiscal burden on state governments.
Analysts and worker groups have flagged that the enforceable, demand-based legal guarantee structure of the earlier law, including its unemployment allowance safeguard, is diluted under the new area-notification and project-approval design.
Right to Work: Constitutional Basis (DPSPs and Article 21)
The Indian Constitution does not list the right to work as a Fundamental Right; instead, it appears as a Directive Principle of State Policy (DPSP) under Part IV. Article 41 directs the State to make effective provision for securing the right to work within the limits of economic capacity, while Article 39(a) directs the State to secure an adequate means of livelihood for citizens. DPSPs are non-justiciable, meaning courts cannot directly enforce them, but judicial interpretation has read livelihood security into Article 21 (Right to Life), a justiciable Fundamental Right under Part III.
Key Details
- Article 41 (Part IV, DPSP): right to work, education, and public assistance in certain cases.
- Article 39(a) (Part IV, DPSP): adequate means of livelihood for all citizens.
- Article 21 (Part III, Fundamental Right): right to life and personal liberty, judicially expanded to include the right to livelihood.
Statutory employment guarantee schemes are the legislative mechanism through which the non-justiciable DPSP promise of Article 41 is operationalised into an enforceable entitlement; the 2026 replacement law's shift away from a demand-based guarantee is significant precisely because it affects how firmly this DPSP commitment is translated into justiciable practice.
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985)
This landmark Supreme Court case held that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to livelihood, reasoning that a person cannot be deprived of the means of livelihood except by a fair, just, and reasonable procedure established by law. The case arose from pavement dwellers challenging eviction by the Bombay Municipal Corporation and remains the foundational precedent linking economic and social rights to Article 21's due process protection.
Key Details
- Decided by a five-judge Constitution Bench on 10 July 1985.
- Held: "no person can live without the means of living," making livelihood inseparable from the right to life.
- The Court still upheld the Corporation's power to evict, but required humane, fair procedure and consideration of alternate arrangements.
The case underpins the constitutional argument that a legally enforceable, demand-driven employment guarantee (rather than a discretionary, project-contingent one) is closer to the spirit of Article 21's livelihood protection, a framing invoked in debates over the new rural jobs law's weaker guarantee structure.
MGNREGA, 2005: Statutory Employment Guarantee Model
The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), enacted in 2005, converted rural employment into a demand-based statutory right for the first time in India. It guaranteed at least 100 days of unskilled manual wage employment per rural household per financial year, with Section 3 creating the binding state obligation and Section 7 mandating an unemployment allowance if work was not provided within 15 days of demand.
Key Details
- Full name: Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (Act 42 of 2005).
- Section 3: guarantees at least 100 days of employment per household per year on demand.
- Section 7: unemployment allowance if work is not provided within 15 days — one-fourth of the wage rate for the first 30 days, half thereafter, borne by the state government.
- Funding under MGNREGA: Centre bore 100% of unskilled wage costs and 75% of material costs; states funded the remainder plus unemployment allowance.
- MGNREGA was universal in application across all rural districts, without a central-notification gatekeeping requirement.
The new law replacing MGNREGA raises the nominal work entitlement to 125 days but removes the unconditional, demand-based guarantee, restricts coverage to centrally notified areas, and shifts a larger wage-cost share to states — changes directly measured against the Section 3/Section 7 architecture that made MGNREGA a rights-based (not merely scheme-based) programme.
- MGNREGA, 2005 guaranteed 100 days of wage employment per household per year; the new law raises this to 125 days but only in centrally notified areas with pre-approved works.
- New law's funding pattern: 60% Centre / 40% state for standard states; 90% Centre / 10% state for special category (northeastern and Himalayan) states — a shift from MGNREGA's full central funding of unskilled wages.
- The new law mandates a 60-day no-work period during peak agricultural seasons.
- Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) established the right to livelihood under Article 21 through a unanimous five-judge bench ruling.
- Constitutional basis of the right to work lies in Article 41 (DPSP) and Article 39(a) (DPSP), both in Part IV, non-justiciable on their own.