'Structural sabotage': Concern over sector-limited job guarantee in new employment law

By A Representative 

The advocacy group Centre for Financial Accountability (CFA) has raised concerns over the passage of the Viksit Bharat – Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (VB–G RAM G), which was approved during the recently concluded session of Parliament amid protests by opposition members. The legislation is intended to replace the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA).

The government has highlighted provisions such as an increase in guaranteed wage employment from 100 days to 125 days and a 60-day pause during peak sowing and harvesting seasons to avoid competing with agricultural labour demand. These features have been projected as key improvements under the new framework.

However, labour rights organisations, policy experts and workers’ collectives have questioned the scope of this expansion. In its statement, cited by CFA, the NREGA Sangharsh Morcha argued that the 125-day guarantee is not universal and applies only to select sectors. According to the statement, the additional days are largely tied to road, rail and port construction and other large infrastructure projects, which it described as “capital-intensive, contractor-driven and prone to irregularities,” limiting access for small and marginal workers and reducing the scheme’s relevance for local livelihood needs.

The statement also criticised the funding structure of the scheme, noting that VB–G RAM G departs from MGNREGA’s centrally funded model. “Previously contributing only 25 per cent of material costs, states now face burdens of 40 per cent to 100 per cent of total costs, ensuring poorer states will curb project approvals, directly stifling work,” the statement said.

Referring to the pause period and administrative provisions, the statement added, “This structural sabotage is compounded by discretionary ‘switch-off’ powers, which allow the scheme to be suspended arbitrarily and render the guarantee meaningless.” It cited the non-release of MGNREGA funds to West Bengal over the last three years as an example of what it termed political misuse of fund allocation, arguing that “the new framework institutionalises this risk, imposing unfunded mandates on states without consultation.”

CFA further stated that the new legislation weakens the statutory right of citizens to demand employment and places greater discretion with state authorities at a time of high unemployment and fiscal stress for states.

Opposition to the Bill intensified following its passage, with opposition MPs staging walkouts and overnight protests outside Parliament, during which copies of the legislation were torn. These protests stood in contrast to the passage of MGNREGA two decades ago, when the Speaker had sought objections in the House and none were raised.

According to CFA, resistance to VB–G RAM G continues to grow, with several organisations and political parties calling for a review of the legislation and restoration of a legally enforceable employment guarantee.