The Supreme Court has disposed of the MNREGA Wage Compensation PIL filed in 2015 over delayed wage payments and minimum wage disparities under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. The Bench noted that earlier directions in Swaraj Abhiyan covered the main issues.
A three-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana heard the matter. The Court also allowed the petitioners to challenge the newly enacted Viksit Bharat-Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Act, 2025.
PIL Raised Wage Payment Concerns
The original petition raised two main concerns. First, it sought compensation for delayed wage payments under MNREGA. Second, it challenged the payment of lower statutory wages instead of state-notified minimum wages.
During the hearing, Justice V. Mohana noted that the legal framework had changed. The new VB-GRAM G Act replaced the earlier MNREGA system.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan argued that the wage issue still remains relevant under the new law. He submitted that the new legislation links its floor minimum wage to earlier MNREGA wage benchmarks.
He also argued that workers should receive state-notified minimum wages. According to him, failure to pay those wages could violate Article 23 and the right to dignity under Article 21.
Court Examines Constitutional Questions
Justice Joymalya Bagchi highlighted the constitutional position of the right to work. He noted that the Constitution does not recognise the right to work as a Fundamental Right.
The Court also considered the relationship between Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles of State Policy. Justice Bagchi questioned whether the Court could direct the government to implement a particular employment scheme.
The Bench therefore declined to expand the existing proceedings to examine the new legislation without a formal challenge.
CJI Praises MNREGA Framework
Chief Justice Surya Kant acknowledged the importance of the earlier MNREGA framework for rural workers. He noted that the scheme provided a dignified way for people without regular employment to earn a livelihood.
The CJI also distinguished the employment guarantee scheme from a free distribution programme. He observed that workers earned wages by performing work under the scheme.
The Court, however, clarified that it could not examine the validity of the VB-GRAM G Act within the present petition.
Liberty Granted to Challenge New Act
The Supreme Court formally disposed of the petition after finding that its main concerns fell within the scope of the Swaraj Abhiyan directions.
However, the Court granted the petitioners liberty to file a fresh challenge against the new legislation. This allows them to raise their surviving concerns regarding minimum wages and wage compensation under the VB-GRAM G Act.
The MNREGA Wage Compensation PIL therefore ends with the Court declining to modify the existing proceedings while preserving the petitioners’ right to challenge the new statutory framework separately.
