Bengaluru: The Karnataka government has decided to legally challenge the recently enacted VB-G-RAM-G Act, citing concerns that the law undermines the constitutional rights of citizens and the autonomy of local governance bodies. On Thursday, the Siddaramaiah-led cabinet unanimously passed a resolution rejecting the implementation of the Act and directed the state’s legal machinery to initiate proceedings questioning its validity in court. The move follows similar rejections by Punjab and Telangana, marking Karnataka as the third state to oppose the legislation.

The Viksit Bharat–Guarantee for Rozgar and Aajeevika Mission (Grameen), or VB-G-RAM-G Act, came into effect on December 21, 2025, after receiving the President’s assent, following passage in both houses of Parliament. The law, which replaces the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), guarantees 125 days of wage employment per year, an increase from the 100 days previously mandated under MGNREGA. However, a major shift in funding structure, changing from 100% central funding under MGNREGA to a 60:40 cost-sharing ratio between Centre and states, has sparked criticism from several state governments.

The Karnataka cabinet, in its resolution, argued that the Act violates the right to work and livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution, asserting that the proposed framework could weaken employment security for rural households. The cabinet’s deliberations included a detailed review of the implications of repealing MGNREGA and replacing it with VB-G-RAM-G, with inputs sought from the Advocate General on the legal and constitutional ramifications of the law.

A key point of contention raised by the Karnataka government is the perceived erosion of Panchayat autonomy. The resolution states that the Act “tramples upon the legitimate rights of Panchayats as vested by the Constitution” and undermines the spirit of the 73rd and 74th amendments, which empower local self-governments to make decisions based on local priorities. According to the cabinet, the Act’s top-down planning approach compromises the ability of Panchayats to allocate resources and select work projects according to local needs.

The state government also expressed federal concerns, arguing that the VB-G RAM G Act disregards the federal structure of India by excluding states from consultations during the law’s formulation. The cabinet criticized the requirement that states bear 40% of the funding, claiming it was imposed unilaterally by the Centre without taking state governments into confidence. This, the resolution stated, constitutes a serious infringement of the financial and administrative autonomy of states, undermining cooperative federalism.

Another major area of concern is the wage structure and work allocation under the Act. The Karnataka government highlighted that VB-G-RAM-G allows works to be carried out only in areas notified by the Central Government, while the wage rates are fixed by the Centre, potentially ignoring minimum wages established by state governments. The cabinet described this as “a serious aberration of the social and economic rights of rural citizens,” noting that the scheme restricts local choice and could adversely affect vulnerable groups, particularly women, Dalits, small farmers, and other marginalized communities.

The resolution further invoked Gandhian principles, asserting that the Act undermines the philosophy of ‘Gram Swaraj’ envisioned by Mahatma Gandhi. The cabinet argued that Panchayats would lose the freedom to prioritize projects based on local requirements and would be constrained by the normative allocations decided by the Centre, a move seen as eroding grassroots democracy.

Based on these constitutional, federal, and social concerns, the Karnataka Cabinet resolved to legally challenge the validity of the VB-G RAM G Act in court. Additionally, the government plans to raise awareness about the Act’s potential adverse impact through special Gram Sabhas, taking the issue to the people and emphasizing its “anti-people” implications.

Chief Minister Siddaramaiah has been a vocal critic of the law since its enactment. Last week, he warned that the VB-GRAM G Act “will ruin lives of the poor,” particularly affecting women, Dalits, small farmers, and other vulnerable groups. Siddaramaiah urged the Centre to scrap the new law and restore MGNREGA, emphasizing that the original scheme provided a more equitable and decentralized framework for rural employment.

The Karnataka government’s opposition to VB-G-RAM-G is grounded in a combination of legal, constitutional, and policy considerations. The cabinet resolution highlights three core objections:

1. Violation of Citizens’ Rights: The Act allegedly compromises the constitutional right to work and livelihood under Article 21, potentially leaving rural households without guaranteed employment security.
2. Erosion of Panchayat Autonomy: By centralizing project allocation and wage determination, the law reduces the authority of local self-governments and conflicts with the principles enshrined in the 73rd and 74th constitutional amendments.
3. Federal Concerns: States are required to bear 40% of the cost without meaningful consultation, challenging the principles of cooperative federalism and undermining the financial autonomy of states.

The move to challenge VB-G-RAM-G in court comes at a time when multiple states have raised objections to the law, citing similar issues with federal overreach and diminished state control. Punjab and Telangana have already expressed resistance to the Act, arguing that it imposes unfunded liabilities on states and centralizes decision-making in a manner inconsistent with decentralized governance.

Experts suggest that the Karnataka government’s legal challenge will likely focus on constitutional provisions protecting citizens’ rights, state powers, and Panchayat autonomy, with a particular emphasis on Article 21 and the 73rd and 74th amendments. Additionally, the litigation may explore whether the cost-sharing mechanism and central directives violate the principles of cooperative federalism as envisaged by the Constitution.

The state’s approach also includes engaging local communities to highlight the perceived shortcomings of the Act. By holding special Gram Sabhas, Karnataka plans to inform rural citizens about the potential impacts of VB-G-RAM-G, particularly the constraints on work selection, wage determination, and local planning. This strategy is expected to mobilize public opinion and strengthen the state’s case against the Act in court.

The controversy surrounding VB-G-RAM-G highlights broader tensions between the Centre and states over the implementation of national employment schemes. While the Act aims to expand employment guarantees from 100 to 125 days and ensure fiscal accountability through cost-sharing, critics argue that it undermines local governance, federal principles, and social protections previously guaranteed under MGNREGA.

In conclusion, the Karnataka Cabinet’s unanimous decision to reject and legally challenge the VB-G-RAM-G Act reflects a strong assertion of state rights and constitutional principles. The move underscores concerns about federalism, Panchayat autonomy, and the social and economic rights of rural citizens. As Karnataka joins Punjab and Telangana in opposing the law, the legal battle over VB-G-RAM-G is expected to intensify, potentially prompting wider debates on the balance of power between the Centre and the states, as well as the future of rural employment guarantees in India.

Key Highlights:

• Karnataka Cabinet unanimously rejects VB-G-RAM-G Act and resolves to challenge it in court.
• Act guarantees 125 days of employment, introduces 60:40 Centre-State funding, replacing 100% central funding under MGNREGA.
• Cabinet argues law violates Article 21, federal principles, and Panchayat autonomy under 73rd and 74th amendments.
• Concerns raised over wage determination, work allocation, and central overreach.
• Government to hold special Gram Sabhas to raise awareness among rural citizens.
• Chief Minister Siddaramaiah called the Act “anti-poor” and urged scrapping it in favor of MGNREGA.
• Karnataka becomes third state after Punjab and Telangana to oppose the legislation.