New Delhi: The Union government found itself facing stiff resistance in Parliament on Monday after introducing a Bill that seeks to replace the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) with a new rural employment framework. Opposition parties sharply criticised the move, questioning both the intent behind the proposed overhaul and the decision to drop Mahatma Gandhi’s name from one of India’s most prominent welfare schemes.
The new legislation, titled the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Bill, 2025, has been listed for consideration in the Lok Sabha. If passed, it would repeal the 2005 Act and introduce a revised employment guarantee aligned with the government’s long-term development vision of “Viksit Bharat 2047”. The Bill proposes a statutory assurance of 125 days of wage employment annually for rural households willing to undertake unskilled manual work.
Leading the criticism, Congress MP Saptagiri Ulaka, who heads the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, said the panel had repeatedly recommended strengthening the existing scheme rather than dismantling it. He pointed out that suggestions to increase workdays to 150 and revise wages upward were made by the committee but remained unimplemented.
Ulaka alleged that the ruling party had never fully embraced MGNREGA, recalling earlier remarks by Prime Minister Narendra Modi that were critical of the programme. “If the aim was reform, why remove Mahatma Gandhi’s name? That question remains unanswered,” he said, adding that pending dues to states and unresolved funding issues were being ignored.
Congress leader Priyanka Gandhi Vadra also questioned the rationale behind renaming the scheme, arguing that such changes lead to unnecessary expenditure on administrative alterations. “What purpose does removing Mahatma Gandhi’s name serve?” she asked, calling it baffling given Gandhi’s global stature and moral authority.
The criticism extended beyond the Congress. Trinamool Congress leader Derek O’Brien described the move as disrespectful to the legacy of the Father of the Nation, while CPI(M) general secretary M.A. Baby said the proposed law masks a dilution of the rights-based framework that defined MGNREGA. According to him, the revised structure shifts greater financial responsibility to states and gives the Centre more discretion over allocations, potentially disadvantaging opposition-ruled regions.
Baby further warned that embedding technology-driven processes into the new law could exclude vulnerable workers from their entitlements, worsening distress in rural areas. The Left, he said, would strongly oppose the Bill both inside and outside Parliament.
MGNREGA, enacted in 2005 and renamed in 2009, guarantees up to 100 days of wage employment per year to rural households. The proposed law increases the guaranteed days to 125 but introduces a centrally sponsored model under which states must frame their own implementation plans within six months of the Act coming into force. Any expenditure beyond the Centre’s approved allocation would have to be borne by the states.
Defending the Bill, Rural Development Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan said the existing law had played a crucial role in providing employment over the past two decades but required an update to reflect changing socio-economic conditions. He argued that widespread social security coverage and evolving rural needs made a new framework necessary.
As the Bill moves forward, it is set to trigger intense debate, with the Opposition framing it as both a symbolic and substantive departure from a cornerstone of India’s rural welfare architecture.
