Madras High Court Closes Plea Challenging Provisions Of Centre's New Law Replacing MGNREGA

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan closed the case after the petitioner informed the bench that he would withdraw the case.

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Section 37 of the Act, which states that from the date when the Act is notified, the MGNREGA would stand repealed.

When the case was taken up on Wednesday, the bench asked the petitioner if the legality of certain provisions of a law could be challenged by way of a public interest litigation.

When the petitioner failed to answer the query, the bench gave the petitioner liberty to withdraw the plea and file fresh plea, if needed, after due research. The petitioner agreed to this and thus, the bench dismissed the plea as withdrawn.

Case Title: T Sivagnanasambandan v. The Secretary and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 121

Case No: WP 4965 of 2026