CURRENT AFFAIRS | 29 JUNE 2026
On 27 June 2026, the Punjab government notified the Viksit Bharat – Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin), better known by its acronym VB-G RAM-G, to take effect from 1 July 2026. The scheme promises rural households a fixed number of days of guaranteed unskilled manual work in a financial year — a clear echo of the famous Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), the 2005 law that turned the “right to work” into something a villager could actually demand. For CLAT 2027 aspirants, this is a textbook collision between a Directive Principle and the design of welfare law.
The story carries an extra twist: Punjab’s ruling party had earlier opposed this very framework before notifying it — a “U-turn” that the press flagged sharply. That politics is not your concern in the exam hall, but the constitutional debate underneath it absolutely is.
Constitutional Framework
The right to work flows from Article 41, a Directive Principle of State Policy: “The State shall, within the limits of its economic capacity and development, make effective provision for securing the right to work, to education and to public assistance.” Article 41 is reinforced by Article 39(a) (the State shall direct policy towards securing an adequate means of livelihood for all citizens). Crucially, Directive Principles under Part IV are not enforceable in court (Article 37), yet they are “fundamental in the governance of the country”. MGNREGA was celebrated precisely because it converted the non-justiciable Article 41 ideal into a justiciable, demand-driven entitlement — if work is not provided within 15 days, an unemployment allowance is payable. Rural employment programmes also engage Article 243G, which empowers Panchayats to plan and implement schemes for economic development and social justice.
The CLAT Angle
This topic is gold for the “Directive Principles vs Fundamental Rights” theme that CLAT visits almost every year. Expect a question asking which Article houses the right to work (answer: 41, a DPSP — not a Fundamental Right). A subtler Legal Reasoning set may give you the principle that “Directive Principles are not enforceable by any court” and a fact pattern where a worker sues for denied work — testing whether you can distinguish a statutory entitlement (MGNREGA) from the bare constitutional ideal (Article 41). Examiners also love contrasting a “demand-driven, rights-based” scheme with a “budget-capped, scheme-based” one; if you can articulate why that distinction matters for enforceability, you will out-reason the field.
Key Facts
| Scheme | VB-G RAM-G (Viksit Bharat – Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission, Gramin) |
| Effective in Punjab | 1 July 2026 |
| Constitutional basis | Article 41 (right to work, DPSP); Article 39(a) |
| Predecessor law | MGNREGA, 2005 — demand-driven, justiciable right to work |
| DPSP enforceability | Not enforceable by courts (Article 37) |
| Panchayat role | Article 243G — local planning & implementation |
Why does the MGNREGA comparison matter so much? Because MGNREGA, 2005, was a statute — a law passed by Parliament — and a statute can create enforceable rights that the bare Constitution cannot. Article 41 only directs the State; MGNREGA commands it to provide up to 100 days of work and pay an allowance if it fails. The critique of any successor scheme is whether it preserves that hard, demand-driven entitlement or softens it into a discretionary, budget-limited programme that a citizen cannot enforce in a writ petition. Keep that line of reasoning sharp: it is exactly the kind of analysis CLAT’s Legal Reasoning passages reward.
There is also a quiet federalism dimension. Rural employment sits at the intersection of Union schemes and State implementation, with Panchayati Raj institutions (post the 73rd Constitutional Amendment, 1992) doing much of the on-ground work. When a State notifies its own version of a national scheme, it is exercising cooperative federalism — adapting a central template to local needs.
Memory Hook
“4-1 WORK is the State’s WISH, not the citizen’s WRIT.” Article 41 = right to work, a DPSP — a wish the State should pursue, not a right you can sue on. Contrast it with MGNREGA = a STATUTE you CAN sue on. For Panchayats and schemes, remember “243G = Gram-level Governance.”
For CLAT 2027, treat VB-G RAM-G as a live case study in how the Constitution’s promises become real (or stay aspirational). The moment you can explain why Article 41 alone cannot win a court case but MGNREGA can, you have grasped the single most-tested idea in Indian constitutional welfare law.
Practice Quiz — 10 CLAT-Style Questions
Click an option to reveal the answer and explanation.
