Minister for IT/BT and Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Priyank Kharge on Wednesday launched a sharp attack on the VB-G RAM G Act, 2025, describing it as anti-poor, anti-farmer and unconstitutional, and warning that it centralises power at the expense of states, local bodies and workers. His remarks add political weight to a growing debate over the scope and intent of the legislation, which the Union government has projected as a framework aligned with its broader vision of national development.Speaking to reporters, Kharge questioned the conceptual foundation of the law, arguing that it grants sweeping authority to the Centre without clearly defining its core objective. “There is no definition of what ‘Viksit Bharat’ actually means, yet sweeping powers are handed to the Centre at the cost of workers, panchayats and states. Politically, socially, legally and morally, this is not something we can accept,” he said. The minister maintained that development policies lacking clarity risk weakening constitutional safeguards built around federalism and local self-governance.
The VB-G RAM G Act, passed earlier this year, seeks to establish a national framework for implementing development-linked programmes across rural and semi-urban regions. Official briefings have described it as a mechanism to streamline delivery, improve coordination among agencies and accelerate infrastructure and welfare projects. However, critics contend that the legislation enables the Union government to bypass elected local institutions by creating centrally appointed authorities with extensive administrative and financial powers.
Kharge’s criticism centres on the potential dilution of the Panchayat Raj system, which the Constitution recognises as a cornerstone of grassroots democracy. He argued that empowering centrally controlled bodies to plan and execute programmes undermines the role of gram panchayats, zilla parishads and state governments, which are better placed to understand local needs. According to him, rural development cannot be reduced to a one-size-fits-all template driven from New Delhi.
Farmer groups and labour unions have also expressed reservations, particularly over provisions that allow land pooling, project clearances and labour deployment through special purpose vehicles created under the Act. While the government has said these mechanisms are intended to cut red tape, opponents fear they could weaken existing protections for agricultural communities and workers. Kharge echoed these concerns, saying development cannot come at the cost of livelihoods and social security.
Legal experts have begun scrutinising the Act for possible constitutional challenges. Several provisions are seen as intersecting with subjects listed under the State List, including local governance, agriculture and rural employment. Kharge indicated that the legislation may face judicial review if states choose to contest it, noting that constitutional balance is not merely a political principle but a legal requirement. He suggested that cooperative federalism, rather than command-and-control policymaking, should guide national development efforts.
The Union government has defended the law, arguing that it does not override states but offers a framework that they can opt into for faster implementation of projects. Officials have said safeguards exist to ensure consultation with state authorities and local bodies. Supporters of the Act point to stalled rural infrastructure projects and fragmented delivery systems as justification for a stronger coordinating role for the Centre.
Yet, the political response from opposition-ruled states has been sceptical. Leaders across several regions have questioned whether the opt-in nature of the framework could, over time, translate into financial or administrative pressure on states to comply. Kharge’s remarks reflect this broader unease, particularly among states that see decentralisation as essential to addressing regional disparities.
The debate over the VB-G RAM G Act unfolds against a backdrop of heightened discussion on the balance between efficiency and federal autonomy. Development economists have long argued that while national standards and funding are important, successful rural transformation depends on local participation and accountability. Critics of the Act argue that centralisation risks alienating communities and weakening democratic oversight.