MGNREGA Replacement Revives Right-to-Work Debate

India's Constitution makers debated hard about where to place the right to work. Some members wanted it as a Fundamental Right that courts could enforce. Others believed a newly independent country with few resources could not promise work to every citizen right away. The final compromise placed it in the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) instead of Fundamental Rights. Directive Principles are not legally enforceable but guide government policy. Fundamental Rights, by contrast, courts can enforce directly. This is why Article 41 says the State shall make effective provision for the right to work. The State must do this within the limits of its economic capacity. Related provisions, Articles 39, 42 and 43, speak of a living wage, humane work conditions, and equal pay for equal work. Together, these build a broader welfare vision.

This was not seen as abandoning the goal. Instead, it was pacing the goal to what the state could afford. A later constitutional review body even recommended recognising a right to rural wage employment. The recommendation was for a minimum number of days each year. This shows that the demand for a stronger, justiciable right to work has persisted well beyond the original Constituent Assembly debate. The idea only became concrete law decades later. Economic distress and civil society pressure pushed Parliament to legislate a specific employment guarantee for rural India.