The Karnataka cabinet resolution criticised several provisions of the VB-G RAM G Act, arguing that it violated citizens’ right to work and livelihood as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Published Jan 08, 2026 | 9:16 PM ⚊ Updated Jan 08, 2026 | 9:16 PM
HK Patil. (X)
Synopsis: The Karnataka government has decided to legally challenge the Union government’s repeal of the MGNREGA and its replacement with the VB-G RAM G Act, arguing that the move violates the constitutional right to work and undermines Panchayat autonomy. Law Minister HK Patil said the repeal weakened bottom-up planning and imposed a heavy financial burden on states.
The Karnataka government has decided to legally challenge the Union government’s decision to repeal the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) and replace it with the Viksit Bharat–Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Act (VB-G RAM G), 2025.
Announcing the decision after a cabinet meeting on Thursday, 8 January, Law and Parliamentary Affairs Minister HK Patil said the repeal infringed upon the right to work. “We will take it to the people’s court. We will fight a legal battle against the repeal,” he said.
The state cabinet also passed a resolution to this effect, arguing that the new Act trampled upon the legitimate rights of Panchayats as vested by the Constitution and ran contrary to the spirit of the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments.
“The bottom-up planning approach, based on local requirements, has been compromised,” the resolution stated.
With this move, Karnataka joins states such as Punjab and Telangana in passing resolutions opposing the VB-G RAM G Act.
The Karnataka cabinet resolution criticised several provisions of the VB-G RAM G Act, arguing that it violated citizens’ right to work and livelihood as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
It also flagged the potential financial burden on the state, describing it as a serious erosion of federalism.
“The Act seriously affects the federal structure by not only completely excluding states from the consultation process, but also by requiring them to bear 40 percent of the cost under terms and conditions unilaterally decided by the Centre, without taking states into confidence,” the resolution stated.
Last week, several workers, activists and advocates in Bengaluru raised similar concerns, particularly over how the Act was ‘bulldozed’ through without consultation with stakeholders. The NREGA Sangharsh Morcha presented an estimate of what Karnataka would have spent had the new law been implemented in 2024–25, based on prevailing MGNREGA trends.
In FY 2024–25, only 36 percent of registered households in Karnataka availed work, generating 13.12 crore person-days. On average, just 45 days of work were provided per active household. The state spent ₹573 crore on the scheme during that year.
Had the same level of employment been generated under the new Act, state expenditure would have risen to ₹2,729 crore, more than four times the cost under the original scheme.
The resolution also argued that the VB-G RAM G Act defeated the spirit of ‘Gram Swaraj’ (village self-rule) as envisioned by Mahatma Gandhi. Panchayats would neither have the freedom to choose works based on local requirements nor the authority to set priorities, while being constrained by normative allocations determined by the Central government, the cabinet observed.
Under the new framework, the Centre has been entrusted with deciding not only state-wise normative allocations for each financial year but also the specific villages where the scheme will be implemented.
“The VB-G RAM G Act is a serious aberration of the social and economic rights of rural people. On the one hand, work will be available only in areas notified by the Central government; on the other, wages will be fixed by the Centre, without any guarantee of adherence to minimum wages set by state governments,” the resolution reads.
Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah had earlier written to Prime Minister Narendra Modi on 30 December, urging him to personally intervene and suspend what he described as the “arbitrary and hurried enforcement” of the VB-G RAM G Act.
He warned that the law risked defeating the “very intent of the original employment guarantee, a demand-driven, rights-based entitlement”.
(Edited by Dese Gowda)
