Supreme Court Asks If Right To Work Can Become Fundamental Right Under Article 21

New Delhi, August 21, 2026: The Supreme Court has raised a larger constitutional question over whether the right to work should be treated on a par with the fundamental right to life and dignity under Article 21, while hearing a petition concerning minimum wages and delayed wage payments under rural employment guarantee schemes.

A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana noted on Friday that the Constitution does not recognise the right to work as a fundamental right. Instead, it places the right among the State's obligations under the Directive Principles of State Policy, Bar & Bench reports.

Can Right To Work Become Enforceable?

“The Constitution does not make the right to work a fundamental right. In fact, it is only a democratic aspiration under Part IV. To achieve that aspiration, the State formulates a policy where work is provided at a graded compensatory level. Should we create it on a par with Article 21?” Justice Bagchi said.

The observation goes to the heart of the debate. Treating the right to work as an enforceable fundamental right could significantly expand the State's constitutional obligations, particularly at a time when employment guarantee programmes depend on policy choices and available resources.

Justice Bagchi also raised the question of what would happen if the State were to reduce its social welfare activities after such a right was recognised.

“That is a very big question which we need to answer. Because if we do that, and the State contracts its social welfare activities, can we issue a mandamus upon them and say, no, you have to implement Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) or the Viksit Bharat-Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) (VB-G RAM G) scheme?” Justice Bagchi asked.

Minimum Wage Question Remains

The Court was hearing a petition concerning compensation for delayed wage payments and whether workers under the rural employment guarantee scheme can be paid less than the minimum wages notified by the respective States.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan argued that the petition had not become infructuous following the replacement of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) by the Viksit Bharat-Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) (VB-G RAM G) Act.

The Supreme Court had earlier dealt with delayed payment of MGNREGA wages in the Swaraj Abhiyan v Union of India judgment. Chief Justice Kant said the issue was covered by that judgment and any failure to implement it would constitute a fresh cause of action.

New Law, Higher Wage Rate

MGNREGA was replaced by the VB-G RAM G Act from July 1, 2026. The new law guarantees up to 125 days of employment per rural household, compared with 100 days under MGNREGA.

It also provides that the wage rate notified under the new law cannot be lower than the rate earlier notified under Section 6 of MGNREGA. The Centre notified new wage rates under the VB-G RAM G Act from July 1, raising the national average from Rs 298.8 under MGNREGA to Rs 327.4 a day.

The increase does not, however, settle the central legal issue before the Court: whether workers must receive the minimum wages notified by individual States.

Bhushan submitted that the minimum wage question continued to survive under the new law and argued that State-notified minimum wages must be paid. He relied on earlier Supreme Court judgments holding that payment below minimum wages can amount to forced labour.

Court Flags Employment-Wage Trade-Off

Chief Justice Kant pointed to the practical implications of imposing a minimum wage threshold on an employment guarantee programme, observing that higher wages could reduce the number of people who receive work if the overall resources remain unchanged.

“Put minimum wages as a threshold and employment shrinks. You realise the difficulty. When a wage threshold is put, the net of employment shrinks because the size of the pie remains the same,” Chief Justice Kant said.

The observation highlights a difficult policy balance between ensuring adequate wages for rural workers and extending employment to as many households as possible within limited resources.

The Chief Justice also said the applicability of the Minimum Wages Act would depend on the nature of the work undertaken under the employment programme.

“It would depend upon the nature of activities in which persons under MGNREGA or the new law or policy are employed. If they are employed in areas which do not fall within the ambit of the State working as an industry or a notified activity under the Minimum Wages Act, the Minimum Wages Act umbrella will not extend. We are with you that we must give a liberal interpretation to these social legislations,” he said.

Fresh Petition To Be Filed

Bhushan maintained that the Court could decide the issue in the existing petition because the new law referred back to the wage provision under MGNREGA. He also argued that requiring a fresh petition would further delay a decision on the issue.

Chief Justice Kant, however, said the basis of the old petition had been overtaken by the new statutory framework and that the Court would require fresh details and statistics on the implementation of the new scheme.

Bhushan eventually agreed to file a fresh petition covering both minimum wages and compensation for delayed payments under the VB-G RAM G Act.

Also Watch:

The fresh proceedings could therefore bring the minimum wage issue back before the Supreme Court under the new statutory framework. At the same time, the Court's observations have opened a wider debate over how far the constitutional promise of work can extend and whether an aspiration under the Directive Principles can acquire the force of an enforceable right.

To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/