Should right to work be made fundamental right? Supreme Court on plea for minimum wage in rural employment schemes

The Supreme Court on Friday questioned whether the statutory guarantee of employment for rural workers can be placed on the same footing as the fundamental right to life and dignity under Article 21 [Aruna Roy v. Union of India].

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana noted that the Constitution does not recognise the right to work as a fundamental right.

Instead, the Court observed, the Constitution places it among the State's obligations under the Directive Principles of State Policy.

“The Constitution does not make the right to work a fundamental right. In fact, it is only a democratic aspiration under Part IV. To achieve that aspiration, the State formulates a policy where work is provided at a graded compensatory level. Should we create it on a par with Article 21?” said Justice Bagchi.

He then flagged the broader constitutional implications of elevating the right to work to the level of an enforceable right, particularly if the State were to scale back its social welfare measures.

“That is a very big question which we need to answer. Because if we do that, and the State contracts its social welfare activities, can we issue a mandamus upon them and say, no, you have to implement Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) or the Viksit Bharat–Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) (BG RAM) scheme?” asked Justice Bagchi.

The Court made the observations while hearing a petition concerning payment of minimum wages and compensation for delayed wages to workers under the rural employment guarantee scheme.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan argued that the petition was not rendered infructuous by the replacement of Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) with the Viksit Bharat–Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) (VB-G RAM G) Act.

The plea before the Court concerns two issues: compensation for delayed payment of MGNREGA wages and whether workers can be paid less than minimum wages notified by the respective States.

The Supreme Court had earlier dealt with delayed payment of MGNREGA wages in the Swaraj Abhiyan v Union of India judgment. Today, CJI Kant said that the issue stood covered by that judgment and that any failure to implement that judgment would constitute a fresh cause of action.

MGNREGA was replaced by the VB-G RAM G Act from July 1, 2026. The new law guarantees up to 125 days of employment per rural household, compared with 100 days under MGNREGA. It also provides that the wage rate notified under the new law cannot be lower than the wage rate earlier notified under Section 6 of MGNREGA.

The Centre had notified new wage rates under the VB-G RAM G Act from July 1, with the national average rising from ₹298.8 under MGNREGA to ₹327.4 per day.

Today, Bhushan told the Court that the minimum wage question continued to survive under the new law. He submitted that the State-notified minimum wages must be paid. He relied on earlier Supreme Court judgments holding that payment below minimum wages can amount to forced labour.

CJI Kant, however, pointed to the practical implications of imposing a minimum wage threshold on an employment guarantee scheme. He observed that a higher wage could reduce the number of workers who could be provided employment if the overall resources remained unchanged.

“Put minimum wages as a threshold and employment shrinks. You realise the difficulty. When a wage threshold is put, the net of employment shrinks because the size of the pie remains the same,” said CJI Kant.

He further noted that the applicability of the Minimum Wages Act would depend on the nature of activities undertaken under the employment scheme.

“It would depend upon the nature of activities in which persons under MGNREGA or the new law or policy are employed. If they are employed in areas which do not fall within the ambit of the State working as an industry or a notified activity under the Minimum Wages Act, the Minimum Wages Act umbrella will not extend. We are with you that we must give a liberal interpretation to these social legislations,” he said.

Bhushan maintained that the issue could be decided in the existing petition because the new law referred back to the wage provision under MGNREGA. He also submitted that requiring a fresh petition would cause further delay in adjudicating the issue.

CJI Kant, however, said that the basis of the old petition had been overtaken by the new statutory framework. He held that the Court would need fresh details and statistics on the implementation of the new scheme.

Bhushan eventually agreed to file a fresh petition. He said that the fresh plea would cover both minimum wages and delayed payment compensation under the new framework of the the VB-G RAM G Act.

[Read Live Coverage]