CURRENT AFFAIRS | 12 MAY 2026
The Centre on 11 May 2026 notified the commencement of the Viksit Bharat – Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Act, 2025 — the VB-G RAM G Act — with effect from 1 July 2026. The new statute will repeal the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 in its entirety and guarantee 125 days of unskilled manual work per rural household per year, up from the existing 100 days under MGNREGA. Union Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan announced that Rs 95,692.31 crore has been allocated as the Centre’s share for FY 2026-27, taking the combined Centre-State outlay to over Rs 1.51 lakh crore.
For CLAT 2027 aspirants, this is one of the most testable Polity + DPSP developments of the year — touching Article 21, Article 41, the legislative competence question under List III Entry 23, and the doctrinal difference between a fundamental right and a statutory guarantee.
Constitutional Framework
India does not recognise a stand-alone fundamental right to work. Article 41 (DPSP) directs the State to make effective provision for the right to work, but Article 37 makes it non-justiciable. However, since Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), the Supreme Court has read the right to livelihood into Article 21, anchoring statutes like MGNREGA and now VB-G RAM G in a constitutionally legitimate space.
Legislative competence: Parliament draws power from List III (Concurrent) Entry 23 — social security, employment and unemployment. Entry 24 (welfare of labour) is a parallel anchor. Article 246 governs the distribution.
Repeal mechanics: The repeal clause of VB-G RAM G 2025 expressly extinguishes MGNREGA 2005. Existing e-KYC verified MGNREGA job cards remain valid until new Gramin Rozgar Guarantee Cards are issued, preserving continuity of entitlement under the General Clauses Act 1897 Section 6.
Why CLAT 2027 Cares
This is a textbook setup for a Legal Reasoning passage on the justiciability of DPSPs. Examiners love the trap that DPSPs are “not enforceable in court” (Article 37), yet the SC has, since State of Madras v Champakam Dorairajan (1951) → Kesavananda Bharati (1973) → Minerva Mills (1980), increasingly treated them as “fundamental in the governance of the country.”
Equally testable: the difference between a statutory guarantee (here, 125 days — subject to budgetary appropriation, repealable by Parliament) and a fundamental right (enforceable under Articles 32 and 226). VB-G RAM G remains the former.
Key Facts — VB-G RAM G v MGNREGA
| Parameter | MGNREGA 2005 | VB-G RAM G 2025 |
|---|---|---|
| Guaranteed days | 100 days / household / year | 125 days / household / year |
| Effective date | 2 February 2006 | 1 July 2026 |
| Planning model | Demand-driven, GP-level shelf of works | Demand-driven + Viksit Gram Panchayat Plan (VGPP) |
| Thematic priorities | 9 permissible categories under Schedule I | 4 themes: water security, rural infra, livelihood infra, extreme weather mitigation |
| FY 2026-27 outlay (Centre) | N/A (repealed) | Rs 95,692.31 crore |
| Unemployment allowance | Section 7 — if no work in 15 days | Retained in statutory form |
Opposition Critique — “Extreme Centralisation”
The Indian National Congress has called VB-G RAM G a “weakening of the bargaining power of rural labour” and an instance of “extreme centralisation,” pointing to the diminished role of Gram Sabhas in approving the shelf of works. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Rural Development chairperson has flagged the need for a phased transition to avoid disruption in the kharif 2026 employment cycle.
This is fertile Current Affairs + Legal Reasoning material: examiners may frame a passage on federalism (Article 246, Schedule VII), cooperative federalism (S.R. Bommai 1994), or even secularism of governance as a basic feature in the context of welfare delivery.
Mnemonic for the Exam Hall
100 → 125 = MGNREGA to VB-G RAM G. Days up, demand-driven model stays, repeal is total. Remember the four VGPP themes with W-R-L-E: Water · Rural infra · Livelihood infra · Extreme weather.
For the DPSP-FR layering: Olga Tellis (1985) read Article 41 into Article 21. Bandhua Mukti Morcha (1984) read Article 23 + 24 + 39(e)(f) + 41 + 42 into Article 21 for bonded labour.
CLAT Question Banks Will Probe
- Whether a statutory entitlement created by Parliament can be enforced under Article 32 (answer: only if a fundamental right is violated; otherwise, Article 226 writ jurisdiction).
- The relationship between Article 41 and the “basic structure” doctrine after Kesavananda Bharati.
- Whether reduction of guaranteed days (say, in a future amendment) would be hit by the “non-retrogression” principle developed in Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar (1991) and M.C. Mehta jurisprudence.
Aspirants should pair this with the Article 47 jurisprudence (state’s duty to raise the level of nutrition) and the Right to Food case PUCL v Union of India (2001) — the most frequently cited DPSP-into-FR conversion of the last two decades.
Practice Quiz — 10 CLAT-Style Questions
Click an option to reveal the answer and explanation.
