SC: Should right to work be a fundamental right?

On Friday, the Supreme Court grappled with the contentious issue of whether the right to work should be considered a fundamental right alongside the right to life and dignity as guaranteed by Article 21. The three-judge bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, discussed the implications of elevating the right to work to the level of an enforceable right, especially if the State were to reduce its social welfare measures.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioner, argued that the issue of payment for delayed minimum wages and ensuring workers receive wages not lower than the state-notified minimum wages is still valid under the new law. However, CJI Kant cautioned that if the State were to scale back its social welfare activities, it might not be possible to issue a mandamus compelling the State to implement schemes like MGNREGA or BG RAM.

This is because the State's ability to reduce social welfare measures could be limited if it is subjected to a court-mandated duty to fulfill its social welfare obligations.

The bench acknowledged that the issue of delayed payment of MGNREGA wages is already covered by a previous judgment. CJI Kant acknowledged that imposing a minimum wage threshold on an employment guarantee scheme might have practical implications, such as reducing the number of workers employed if the overall resources remain unchanged. He noted that the applicability of the Minimum Wages Act would be determined by the nature of activities undertaken under the employment scheme.