Madras High Court Upholds Union Government's Policy Authority in Viksit Bharat Rozgar Act Case
In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court on Thursday firmly stated that the Viksit Bharat - Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajveevika Mission (Gramin) Act represents a policy decision of the Union government, and as such, the judiciary cannot intervene in its implementation. The court emphasized that such matters fall squarely within the executive domain, urging those dissatisfied to seek redress through democratic processes like elections.
Bench Questions Petitioner's Grounds and Adjourns Hearing
The first bench, comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan, made these observations while hearing a petition filed by an advocate challenging eight specific provisions of the VB-G-RAM-G Act. The petitioner argued that these sections are anti-federal and ultra vires of the Constitution, alleging excessive centralization of power.
However, the bench expressed skepticism, questioning the petitioner's approach. "What is there for us to do? The scheme is a policy of the Union govt. If you are not happy with this, then wait for the elections. These are all statutory policies on sharing liabilities with the states," the bench remarked. It further censured the petitioner for not submitting a proper affidavit and clear grounds for the challenge, asking pointedly, "You say that this new scheme is violative of the Constitution, so in what manner is it violative?"
Detailed Allegations of Centralization and Federal Violations
During the proceedings, the petitioner's counsel elaborated on the concerns, noting that while the Act increases the number of days guaranteed for work under schemes like MGNREGA, it imposes new conditions that shift decision-making power from local panchayats to the Central government. "The Centre took all the powers affecting the federal system. Earlier, the decision-making power was with the respective panchayat, but now it was transferred to the Central govt," he argued.
The bench countered this by questioning the very basis of the federalism argument, stating, "What is a federal system? Even earlier, it was Central legislation." This highlights the court's view that the Act, like its predecessors, is inherently a central law, and changes in administrative control do not necessarily equate to constitutional violations.
Specific Provisions Under Scrutiny and Future Proceedings
According to advocate T Sivagnanasambandan, the petitioner, the challenged provisions include Sections 3(1), 4(5), 5(1), 6(2), 22, 34, 30, and 37 of the Act. He contended that these sections lead to excessive centralization, undermining federalism—a basic feature of the Constitution. The Act is accused of centralizing key aspects such as:
- Planning and fund allocation
- Wage fixation and nature of work
- Monitoring and implementation processes
This, he argued, leaves states with no effective autonomy, potentially disrupting the balance of power between the Centre and states.
In response, the bench adjourned the hearing, directing the petitioner to file a more comprehensive affidavit and clearer grounds of challenge. This move allows for a more substantive legal debate in future sessions, ensuring that any constitutional concerns are thoroughly examined.
Broader Implications for Governance and Federal Dynamics
This case underscores ongoing tensions between central authority and state autonomy in India's federal structure. The court's reluctance to interfere in policy matters reflects a judicial restraint principle, where courts typically avoid stepping into executive decisions unless there is a clear constitutional breach. However, the petitioner's allegations raise important questions about how new legislation might reshape governance models, particularly in rural employment and development schemes.
As the hearing progresses, it will be crucial to monitor how the court balances these federalism concerns with the government's policy prerogatives. The outcome could set precedents for similar challenges against centralizing laws in the future.
