Introduction
The Supreme Court of India has recently engaged in a critical discussion about whether the right to work should be considered as fundamental as the right to life and dignity under Article 21. This debate emerged from the case Aruna Roy v. Union of India, where the Court assessed the statutory guarantee of employment for rural workers.
The Constitutional Perspective
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana highlighted that the right to work is not currently recognized as a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution. Instead, it is categorized under the Directive Principles of State Policy, which are non-justiciable but are meant to guide the State in policy-making. Justice Bagchi articulated the complexity of equating the right to work with Article 21, emphasizing its current status as a democratic aspiration rather than an enforceable right.
Implications of Recognizing the Right to Work
Justice Bagchi raised important constitutional questions regarding the potential consequences of elevating the right to work. He queried whether such a move would compel the State to maintain or expand its social welfare programs, even if it decided otherwise. CJI Kant echoed this concern, contemplating whether imposing a minimum wage could inadvertently reduce employment opportunities under schemes like the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) or its successor, the Viksit Bharat–Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) (VB-G RAM G) Act.
Current Case Context
The Court’s observations came during a hearing on a petition dealing with the payment of minimum wages and compensation for delayed wages to rural workers. Advocate Prashant Bhushan represented the petitioners, arguing against the notion that the replacement of MGNREGA with the VB-G RAM G Act rendered the case moot.
Bhushan focused on two critical issues: compensation for delayed wages and the payment of wages below the state-notified minimum rates. He cited previous Supreme Court rulings that equated paying less than minimum wages to forced labor.
More Read
Judicial Observations
CJI Kant pointed out the practical challenges of enforcing minimum wage standards within employment guarantee schemes. He warned that such a requirement could shrink employment opportunities if the available resources remained constant. Additionally, he noted that the applicability of the Minimum Wages Act depends on the nature of the activities undertaken, suggesting that not all work under these schemes might qualify.
Next Steps
Although Bhushan suggested that the issues could be resolved within the current petition, CJI Kant advised filing a new petition under the new statutory framework. Bhushan agreed, indicating that the fresh plea would address both minimum wage concerns and delayed payment compensation under the VB-G RAM G Act.
This ongoing legal discourse highlights the complexities involved in balancing constitutional aspirations with practical policy implementation, as the Supreme Court continues to explore the implications of recognizing the right to work as a fundamental right.
