The bill, cleared during the monsoon sitting, replaces the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act with a new framework that the government says will modernise rural welfare delivery and improve efficiency. Gandhi rejected that premise, asserting that the law dismantles a rights-based, demand-driven guarantee and converts it into a centrally rationed programme. In a post on his official X account, he wrote that the measure “destroys the guarantee” and places control firmly in Delhi rather than in village councils and households.
Opposition parties have staged coordinated protests since the vote, contending that the legislation was introduced and cleared at speed, with limited time for parliamentary committees to examine its provisions. Several MPs alleged that amendments were moved and adopted amid disruptions, preventing clause-by-clause discussion. Gandhi echoed those concerns, saying the manner of passage was as troubling as the substance of the law itself.
At the core of the dispute is the shift away from an entitlement model under which rural households could demand up to 100 days of wage employment, with the state legally bound to provide work or compensation. The new law, according to the government’s own explanatory note, moves towards a capped allocation model tied to budgetary ceilings and outcome-based metrics. Officials argue this will curb leakages, target the poorest households and align spending with local development priorities.
Critics counter that the entitlement was precisely what empowered rural workers, especially women and marginal farmers, by giving them legal recourse when work was denied. Gandhi has framed the change as a rollback of social protection achieved after years of struggle, warning that rationing employment will leave vulnerable families exposed during droughts, price shocks and agricultural downturns. His remarks have resonated with labour unions and civil society groups that see the programme as a stabiliser for rural incomes.
Government ministers have defended the bill by pointing to persistent problems under the old regime, including delayed wage payments, ghost beneficiaries and uneven implementation across states. They say the revamped scheme integrates digital verification, converges with infrastructure projects and prioritises skill-linked work, thereby creating durable assets rather than short-term relief. Supporters within the ruling coalition argue that fiscal discipline is essential given competing demands on the exchequer.
The political battle has also taken on a federal dimension. Several state governments, particularly those run by opposition parties, have expressed concern that the new framework concentrates power at the Centre by tightening guidelines and reducing flexibility for local planning. Under the previous law, gram sabhas played a central role in identifying works and monitoring execution. The replacement legislation expands the role of central ministries in approving projects and disbursing funds, a change opponents say weakens grassroots democracy.
Economists and rural development specialists are divided. Some note that the employment guarantee had become a lifeline during economic shocks, absorbing surplus labour and supporting consumption in the countryside. Others acknowledge inefficiencies but caution that abrupt structural changes risk excluding those who lack digital access or formal documentation. Academic studies over the years have linked the programme to reductions in distress migration and improvements in bargaining power for low-wage workers.
Gandhi’s intervention fits into a broader opposition narrative that the government is curbing welfare entitlements in favour of centrally managed schemes. By calling the bill “anti-village,” he has sought to position the debate as one about rural dignity and constitutional guarantees rather than administrative reform. Senior leaders from allied parties have amplified this message, pledging to challenge the law through parliamentary procedures and, if necessary, judicial review.