Evaluate the implications of repealing MGNREGA, 2005, on the **right-to-work** jurisprudence in India.

The right to work flows from the Directive Principles — Art. 39(a), 41 and 43 — which are non-justiciable. MGNREGA, 2005 converted this directive into a justiciable statutory entitlement, a shift the Supreme Court affirmed in Swaraj Abhiyan v. Union of India (2016). Its repeal by the VB–G RAM G Act, 2025 (w.e.f. 1 July 2026) reshapes this jurisprudence — with both continuity and risk [4].

How the entitlement is preserved and deepened

• Statutory guarantee retained and enlarged — 100 → 125 days per rural household — quantitatively strengthening the enforceable claim [3].
• Saving clause carries over ongoing MGNREGA works, preventing rupture of accrued entitlements during transition [2].
• DBT + face-authentication + e-KYC stack hardens the wage-payment right, curbing the delayed-payment litigation that dogged MGNREGA [1].

Concerns for the jurisprudence

• Repealing a rights-defining statute resets accumulated precedent; continuity of Swaraj Abhiyan-era case-law under the new Act is untested [4].
• Move from a demand-driven guarantee to saturation, plan-led delivery via VGPPs risks diluting the individual's justiciable "work-on-demand" core [2].
• Normative, centrally-sponsored funding may soften the automatic, uncapped wage-floor obligation [3].

Net, the right to work survives statutorily and is expanded, but its demand-driven justiciable heart needs safeguarding. Robust grievance-redress and social audit under the new Act — anchored in Art. 41 and SDG-8 — should preserve, not erode, the jurisprudential gains.