PIL In Madras High Court Challenges Centre's New Law Replacing MGNREGA, Says It Makes Centre Incharge Of State Subjects

A plea has been filed in the Madras High Court challenging eight provisions of the Viksit Bharat – Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Act [VB-G-RAM G]. The plea, filed by Advocate T Sivagnanasambandan alleges that the provisions of the new Act, which is replacing the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), are anti-federal and ultra vires to Article 245 and Article 246 of the Constitution. The plea argues that the provisions legislate on matters falling under the State List and the Concurrent List, including rural employment, agriculture labour, panchayatraj administration, local self-government and give exclusive control to the Union Government. The provisions that have been challenged are the following: Section 3(1) of the Act, which calls upon the State Government to make a scheme consistent with the provisions of the Act within 6 months from the date of commencement of the Act. Section 4(5) of the Act, which states that the Central Government shall determine the State-wise normative allocation for each financial year, based on objective parameters as may be prescribed by the Central Government. Section 5(1) of the Act, which states that the State Government shall, in such rural area in the state as notified by the Central Government, provide to every household whose adult member volunteer to do unskilled manual work, not less than 125 days of guaranteed employment in a financial year in accordance with the Scheme made under the Act. Section 6(2) of the Act, which states that the State Government shall notify in advance, a period aggregating to 60 days in a financial year, covering the peak agricultural seasons of sowing and harvesting, during which works under the Act shall not be undertaken. Section 22 of the Act, which states the nature of scheme and the fund sharing pattern Section 34 of the Act, which talks about the power of State Government to make rules. Section 30 of the Act, which states that the Act or Scheme made under the Act would have an overriding effect. Section 37 of the Act, which states that from the date when the Act is notified, the MGNREGA would stand repealed. The petitioner has stated that the act centralises planning, fund allocation, wage fixation, nature of work, monitoring and implementation leaving states with no autonomy. It has been stated that such centralisation destroys the federal balance, which is a basic feature of the Constitution. The petitioner has also stated that the new act reduces Panchayats to mere implementing agencies and such dilution violates the constitutional vision of the local self-governance. The plea further states that the provisions compel the State to bear excess expenditure, unemployment allowance liabilities without financial autonomy or consent thus, violating fiscal federalism. The plea also states that though the Act has been titled as an employment guarantee law, the true substance of the Act advances centralised infrastructure aggregation, administrative and digital control. Thus, the plea states that when the object and effect of the legislation differ, the court is empowered to lift the veil. Thus, the plea seeks to declare the particular provisions of the Act as null and void. Case Title: T Sivagnanasambandan v. The Secretary and Others

PIL In Madras High Court Challenges Centre's New Law Replacing MGNREGA, Says It Makes Centre Incharge Of State Subjects

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

PIL In Madras High Court Challenges Centre's New Law Replacing MGNREGA, Says It Makes Centre Incharge Of State Subjects

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers