Thank you dear subscribers, we are overwhelmed with your response.
Your Turn is a unique section from ThePrint featuring points of view from its subscribers. If you are a subscriber, have a point of view, please send it to us. If not, do subscribe here: https://theprint.in/subscribe/
India’s rural welfare landscape has predominantly focused upon employment guarantee statutes as a means to promote social and economic justice, furthering constitutional values imbibed in Article 38 and Article 41 of the Indian Constitution. The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (MGNREGA) was the foundational law that secured right to work through guaranteed employment and wages, aimed at securing livelihood of rural households. Now, the Viksit Bharat – Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Act, 2025 (VB – G RAM G), replaces MGNREGA, marking an important shift in the legislative architecture governing rural employment in India.
Against this backdrop, this article aims to succinctly delve into the key differences between the two statutes.
Legislative Aim
MGNREGA was conceptualised on the idea of right to work and it majorly focused upon employment generation to ensure livelihood security and endeavoured towards productive absorption of rural under-employed and surplus labour force. On the other hand, VB – G RAM G aims towards alignment of the rural development framework with the broader national vision of Viksit Bharat @2047.
This change in policy aim reflects a broader ideological shift in the rural welfare scheme – from employment guarantee being a right under MGNREGA, to being restructured as a means towards infrastructure and asset creation under VB – G RAM G. While nation building is a legitimate purpose and even desirable, however, it becomes questionable if it shifts the focus from rural welfare and livelihood security, the primary function of an employment security law.
Employment Guarantee
MGNREGA guaranteed 100 days of wage employment to rural households. Whereas, the statutory minimum days of guaranteed employment has been increased to 125 days under VB – G RAM G. However, VB – G RAM G also provides that no work shall be executed under the scheme, for an aggregate of 60 days in a financial year, during peak agricultural seasons in order to ensure availability of labour. Thus, a seasonal pause has been codified in the statute which did not exist under MGNREGA.
While increasing minimum work days is praiseworthy, it becomes symbolic if done without resolving structural issues underlying the scheme. MGNREGA was often criticized for delayed payments, provision of lesser work days, funding issues, corruption among others. For VB – G RAM G to be truly successful, it must effectively address these problems in order to bring a meaningful change in the rural society, otherwise it risks becoming just a cosmetic relabeling.
Funding Pattern
Under MGNREGA the Central Government was responsible for meeting a major portion of the cost of scheme, with a lesser burden on states, including payment of wages and a certain share of material cost and administrative expenses. Contrarily, VB – G RAM G provides a pre-determined cost split between Centre and State: 90:10 for North Eastern, Himalayan States and Jammu & Kashmir and 60:40 for others. It also introduces the system of normative allocation of funds, as fixed by the Centre for the states, with any excess expenditure to be borne by the state.
Thus, while MGNREGA was predominantly a Centre funded scheme without any funding cap, VB – G RAM G operates on standardized funding pattern with annual budget limits. Therefore, the new scheme leads to an increased financial burden on several states, raising questions on their ability to meet such fiscal demands and ensuring proper implementation of the scheme.
Planning and Implementation
Under MGNREGA, the Gram Panchayat played a primary role in identification and allocation of employment opportunities among the applicants. Conversely, under VB – G RAM G the Gram Panchayat still plays a prominent role in allocation of work, though the opportunities of work have to be taken up from the Viksit Gram Panchayat Plan.
Thus, while both schemes promote decentralization by empowering Gram Panchayat in terms of work allocation, however, in terms of planning VB – G RAM G, by introducing Viksit Gram Panchayat Plans, introduces a more centralized approach as compared to MGNREGA. This centralization might further the legislative aim of VB – G RAM G, yet, it may lead to erosion of localised decision making.
Conclusion
The introduction of MGNREGA, 2005 was a significant step towards codifying employment guarantee and the shift to VB – G RAM G Act, 2025 marks another important moment. While rural employment guarantee is the common objective underlying both the legislations, the legislative inclination, statutory architecture and modes of implementation differ.
However, legislative reform is just the beginning. The true test of effectiveness of every statute lies in its implementation. Therefore, whether the changes introduced through VB – G RAM G Act will have a meaningful impact on rural unemployed population depends upon robust operations. Ultimately, upliftment is the shared legislative purpose, regardless of the path chosen.
Kanishka Chaudhary is pursuing her B.A., LL.B. (Hons.) from the National Law University, Jodhpur.
These pieces are being published as they have been received – they have not been edited/fact-checked by ThePrint.