The Karnataka government will approach the Supreme Court to seek permission to implement the MGNREGA rural employment scheme for the current fiscal year.

This move follows the central government's decision to repeal the MGNREGA law, leaving the state without a statutory framework to guarantee employment for rural laborers. Because the state relies on these guarantees to stabilize rural incomes, the lack of a legal replacement creates a significant gap in social welfare delivery.

During a state cabinet meeting in Bengaluru on May 30, 2024, Chief Minister Siddaramaiah and the cabinet decided to petition the court to formulate and implement an action plan for the scheme [1], [2], [3]. The state argues that the central government repealed the law without prior consultation and failed to provide a replacement under the new VB-G RAM G Act [2].

"No alternative has been provided by the Centre," Finance Minister Patil said [1].

The state cabinet spokesperson said the Centre repealed the rural employment guarantee law without consultation, and failed to put in place any alternative mechanism under the VB-G RAM G Act [2]. This legal vacuum prevents the state from officially executing the works that rural populations depend upon for survival.

Chief Minister Siddaramaiah previously highlighted the scale of the program's impact in the region. He said the scheme, which was implemented by the UPA government in 2005, has generated about 182 crore person-days of employment in Karnataka so far [4].

By seeking a judicial mandate, Karnataka aims to bypass the current legislative impasse with the central government. The state intends to ensure that rural workers continue to have access to guaranteed labor opportunities despite the repeal of the national statutory framework [1], [3].

“"No alternative has been provided by the Centre."”

This legal challenge highlights a growing tension between state and central governments in India over the administration of social safety nets. By petitioning the Supreme Court, Karnataka is attempting to establish a judicial precedent that could allow other states to maintain repealed central welfare programs if no viable alternative is provided, effectively challenging the Centre's authority to unilaterally dismantle rural employment guarantees.