While MGNREGA was a statutory right, VB-G RAM G appears to be a scheme-based intervention. What are the constitutional and governance implications of this transition for rural workers?

Q. While MGNREGA was a statutory right, VB-G RAM G appears to be a scheme-based intervention. What are the constitutional and governance implications of this transition for rural workers? (15 marks, 250-350 words)

The premise needs a correction at the outset: VB-G RAM G is not merely a scheme but the Viksit Bharat–Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Act, 2025, passed by Parliament, which replaces MGNREGA, 2005 [1][3]. The statutory form survives; the real risk to rural workers lies in how much of the entitlement now shifts into executive rule-making and fiscal design.

Statutory character: continuity, not rupture - MGNREGA gave a legal guarantee of 100 days of unskilled work, enforceable against State governments, with unemployment allowance on failure to provide work within 15 days [2]. - VB-G RAM G retains both features and raises the guarantee to 125 days — a legislative widening, not a downgrade, of the right to work [1].

Constitutional implications - The right-to-work guarantee gives statutory teeth to DPSP Article 41 and supports the expansive reading of Article 21 (livelihood as part of life). - A statutory base preserves judicial enforceability; had the transition been by executive order, workers would have lost writ-backed claims and been left with policy promises alone. - Risk: entitlement details left to delegated legislation — Rules, not the parent Act, prescribe key parameters, weakening parliamentary oversight [1].

Governance and federal implications - The Centre now fixes a state-wise normative allocation each year through Rules; States bear expenditure in excess of it [1]. A demand-driven guarantee thus meets a supply-capped budget — the core tension for workers. - Cost-sharing of 60:40 (90:10 for North-eastern and Himalayan States), with States funding unemployment allowance and delay compensation, raises cooperative-federalism concerns for fiscally weaker States [1]. - Positive side: alignment with Viksit Bharat@2047, saturation delivery, social audit and digital monitoring can improve accountability [3].

The transition preserves the right while relocating discretion — from statute to rules, from demand to allocation. Placing the allocation formula and grievance timelines in the Act itself, with adequate central financing, would let VB-G RAM G deliver both a livelihood guarantee and the dignity Article 21 promises.

(~330 words)

Sources: 1. PRS Legislative Research — The Viksit Bharat–Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) (VB–G RAM G) Bill, 2025 — statutory replacement of MGNREGA, 125 days, unemployment allowance, normative allocation by central Rules, 60:40 and 90:10 cost-sharing, States bearing excess expenditure 2. Arthapedia, Indian Economic Service (Govt. of India) — MGNREGA, 2005 — legal guarantee of 100 days, enforceable obligation on States, unemployment allowance within 15 days 3. Rural Development Department, Government of Haryana — VB–G RAM G Act, 2025 — Act replaces MGNREGA, alignment with Viksit Bharat@2047, State-level operationalisation