Madras High Court Declines to Intervene in Viksit Bharat Rozgar Act, Labels it Union Government Policy
The Madras High Court, in a significant ruling 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 there is no scope for judicial interference in such matters. The first bench, comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan, delivered these observations while hearing a petition filed by an advocate challenging eight specific provisions of the VB-G-RAMG Act.
Court Questions Petitioner's Grounds and Federalism Claims
During the proceedings, the bench expressed skepticism about the petitioner's arguments, which alleged that the provisions were anti-federal and ultra vires of the Constitution. The court pointedly asked, "What is there for us to do in court? The scheme of the act is a policy of the Union govt; the answer has to be given by you somewhere else not here." The judges emphasized that if the petitioner was dissatisfied, the appropriate forum would be the electoral process, stating, "If you are not happy with this, then wait for the elections. These are all statutory policies on sharing liabilities with the states."
Earlier in the hearing, the court censured the petitioner for failing to submit a proper affidavit and clear grounds for the challenge. The bench inquired, "You (petitioner) say that this new scheme is violative of the Constitution, so in what manner is it violative?" Specifically, they questioned whether the minimum number of workdays guaranteed under the MNREGA had been reduced in the new act, to which the petitioner's counsel responded that while the number of days had increased, it came with restrictive conditions.
Petitioner Alleges Excessive Centralization Under the Act
The counsel for the petitioner argued that the act centralizes all powers, undermining the federal system. He contended that decision-making authority, which previously rested with respective panchayats, has now been transferred to the central government. This shift, he claimed, violates the basic feature of federalism enshrined in the Constitution. However, the bench countered this by noting, "What is federal system? Even earlier also it was central legislation," highlighting that similar frameworks have existed in past central laws.
According to advocate T Sivagnanasambandan, the challenged provisions include Sections 3(1), 4(5), 5(1), 6(2), 22, 34, 30, and 37 of the act. He alleged that these sections lead to excessive centralization, affecting planning, fund allocation, wage fixation, work nature, monitoring, and implementation, thereby stripping states of effective autonomy. The petitioner asserted that this centralization infringes on the principles of federalism, which is a cornerstone of the Indian Constitution.
Court Adjourns Hearing for Better Affidavit Submission
In light of the petitioner's inadequate documentation, the bench adjourned the hearing to allow time for filing a more comprehensive affidavit and clearer grounds of challenge. This decision underscores the court's insistence on proper legal procedures and substantiated claims before entertaining constitutional challenges. The case highlights ongoing debates about the balance of power between the central and state governments in India, particularly in the context of new legislative measures aimed at employment and rural development.
The VB-G-RAMG Act, part of the Viksit Bharat initiative, aims to enhance employment guarantees and livelihood missions in rural areas. However, this legal challenge brings to the forefront concerns about federalism and the distribution of powers. The Madras High Court's stance reinforces the principle that policy decisions, especially those enacted through legislation, are primarily within the domain of the executive and legislative branches, with courts intervening only in cases of clear constitutional violations.
