Introduction
In a significant ruling impacting rural employment and social welfare governance, the Supreme Court of India on October 27, 2025, dismissed the Union Government’s petition challenging the Calcutta High Court’s order directing the resumption of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) scheme in West Bengal from August 1, 2025.
The bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that there was no valid ground to interfere with the High Court’s decision, effectively paving the way for the revival of the MGNREGA program that had been on hold since 2022 over alleged corruption and misuse of funds.
This decision underscores the judiciary’s continued emphasis on balancing transparency and accountability with the welfare rights of citizens, especially those belonging to vulnerable rural communities.
Background: MGNREGA Scheme and Suspension in West Bengal
Launched in 2005, the MGNREGA scheme is one of India’s largest social welfare initiatives. It guarantees at least 100 days of wage employment in a financial year to every rural household whose adult members volunteer to do unskilled manual work.
In West Bengal, the implementation of the scheme came to a standstill in 2022, when the Union Ministry of Rural Development halted the release of funds to the state, citing widespread irregularities, fake job cards, and embezzlement of funds.
The suspension left lakhs of rural households without livelihood support, leading to widespread protests and multiple representations by worker unions, including the Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity (PBKMS).
Calcutta High Court’s Order: A Push for Balance Between Accountability and Welfare
Hearing the petitions filed by the PBKMS and affected workers, the Calcutta High Court had, in a detailed order, directed the Centre to resume the implementation of MGNREGA in the state from August 1, 2025.
While recognizing the Centre’s right to investigate allegations of mismanagement and fund misuse, the Court made it clear that indefinite suspension of the scheme was against the spirit of the MGNREGA Act.
The High Court’s key observation stated:
“The scheme of the Act does not envisage a situation where it would be put to cold storage for eternity. The Central Government has sufficient means to enquire into the irregularities in disbursement of wages; however, there can be a line drawn between past actions and future steps to be taken for implementation. This, in the opinion of this Court, would be in public interest and subserve the intent in which the Act was enacted.”
Essentially, the Court balanced the need for accountability with the fundamental welfare purpose of MGNREGA, holding that the people dependent on the scheme should not suffer indefinitely due to ongoing bureaucratic inquiries.
Centre’s Challenge Before the Supreme Court
The Union of India, aggrieved by the Calcutta High Court’s decision, moved the Supreme Court, arguing that resuming the scheme prematurely could hamper the ongoing investigation into financial irregularities and lead to further misuse of funds.
The Centre maintained that massive corruption had taken place in the West Bengal implementation of MGNREGA, necessitating the continued suspension of funds until a comprehensive audit was completed.
The government’s counsel submitted that unless systemic reforms were instituted, public money could again be diverted through ghost job cards and manipulated attendance records.
However, the bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta was not convinced by these arguments.
Supreme Court’s Ruling: No Ground to Interfere
The Supreme Court bench dismissed the petition, upholding the High Court’s direction for resumption of MGNREGA from August 1, 2025.
The Court reiterated that welfare schemes meant for livelihood security cannot be put on indefinite hold merely due to ongoing administrative or criminal inquiries.
The judges observed that while financial accountability was essential, it could not override the constitutional and statutory duty of the state to ensure livelihood opportunities for rural citizens.
The bench stated that the Centre’s investigation could continue simultaneously without affecting the prospective implementation of the scheme.
Legal and Policy Significance
This judgment reinforces the judiciary’s consistent position that public welfare schemes must not be sacrificed at the altar of bureaucratic delay or political disputes.
It also reaffirms the broader principles of social justice enshrined in Articles 38 and 41 of the Indian Constitution, which mandate the state to secure a social order promoting welfare and to make effective provisions for securing the right to work.
Furthermore, it strengthens the interpretation that the Right to Employment, though not explicitly a fundamental right, is a statutory entitlement under the MGNREGA Act, and its arbitrary suspension affects the right to life under Article 21.
Reactions and Implications
1. Relief for Rural Workers
For lakhs of workers across West Bengal’s rural districts, the Supreme Court’s verdict brings a long-awaited relief. Many workers had not received payments for completed work and had been struggling without alternative employment since the scheme’s suspension.
2. Accountability Continues
The Court’s decision does not halt the Centre’s probe. The Union Government retains full liberty to investigate past embezzlements and to prosecute those involved in fund diversion. However, the future implementation of the scheme must go on without interruption.
3. Federal Balance and Judicial Oversight
The judgment also underlines the delicate balance between the Centre and the States in implementing centrally sponsored schemes. While the Centre provides funding, the execution lies with the State government, and any political standoff between the two cannot be allowed to harm beneficiaries.
Legal experts view this as a progressive step towards protecting citizens’ rights against administrative overreach.
Quotes from the High Court Order
The Calcutta High Court’s strong words resonate through the Supreme Court’s affirmation:
“The Act was designed to prevent rural distress and unemployment. Holding back its implementation punishes not the corrupt, but the poor. Inquiry into corruption must proceed, but the livelihood of millions cannot be collateral damage.”
This sentiment encapsulates the human-centric philosophy that has guided judicial intervention in welfare-related disputes.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s dismissal of the Centre’s plea is a powerful reaffirmation of welfare jurisprudence in India. By upholding the Calcutta High Court’s order, the Court has emphasized that livelihood rights cannot be held hostage to administrative inefficiency or allegations of corruption.
As the MGNREGA scheme prepares to restart from August 1, 2025, this ruling stands as a reminder that transparency and welfare must go hand in hand — not one at the cost of the other.
Also Read
NLU Students Demand Response from Consortium on CLAT Application and Counselling Fees
Madhya Pradesh High Court Grants Divorce for Mental Cruelty: False Allegations of Alcoholism by Wife
