After setback in SC, Rural Ministry tells PMO it may consider MGNREGS resumption in WB: Report
New Delhi: Days after a setback in the Supreme Court, the Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD) has reportedly informed the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) that it may consider resuming the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) in West Bengal under “special conditions”.
Implementation of the scheme in the state has remained suspended for over three years. The Trinamool Congress (TMC)-led West Bengal government has been repeatedly urging the Centre to release funds and restart the rural employment programme.
According to a report by The Indian Express on Wednesday, the Ministry informed the PMO last week that it may “consider” resumption of MGNREGS in West Bengal under specific conditions. The PMO had sought a report from the Ministry on the issue.
On October 27, the Supreme Court dismissed the Centre’s Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging a June 18 order of the Calcutta High Court, which had directed the implementation of the MGNREGS in West Bengal prospectively from August 1, 2025. The High Court had left it to the Centre to impose “special conditions” for implementation of the scheme in the state.
The Rural Development Ministry decided to challenge the High Court order before the Supreme Court and filed the SLP on July 31, a day before the order for implementation was to come into effect. That petition was dismissed on October 27.
The Centre had earlier invoked Section 27 of the MGNREGA, 2005, to suspend fund releases to West Bengal on March 9, 2022, citing “non-compliance with directives of the Central Government.” Since then, no MGNREGS-related work has been undertaken in the state, added the report.
Before the scheme’s suspension, between 2014–15 and 2021–22, an estimated 51 lakh to 80 lakh families in West Bengal availed employment under the flagship scheme annually.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Deep societal faultlines persist despite 75 years of independence: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Judge cites denial of home to Muslim girl, opposition to Dalit women cooking mid-day meals
Hyderabad, February 23, 2026: Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has said that despite repeated affirmations of constitutional morality by courts, deep societal faultlines rooted in caste and religious discrimination continue to shape everyday realities in India.
Speaking at a seminar on “Constitutional Morality and the Role of District Judiciary” organised by the Telangana Judges Association and the Telangana State Judicial Academy in Hyderabad, Justice Bhuyan reflected on the gap between constitutional ideals and social practices.
He cited a recent instance involving his daughter’s friend, a PhD scholar at a private university in Noida, who was denied accommodation in South Delhi after her surname revealed her Muslim identity. According to Justice Bhuyan, the landlady bluntly informed her that no accommodation was available once her religious background became known.
In another example from Odisha, he referred to resistance by some parents to the government’s mid-day meal programme because the food was prepared by Dalit women employed as cooks. He noted that some parents had objected aggressively and refused to allow their children to consume meals cooked by members of the Scheduled Caste community.
Describing these incidents as “the tip of the iceberg,” Justice Bhuyan said they reveal how far society remains from the benchmark of constitutional morality even 75 years into the Republic. He observed that while the Constitution lays down standards of equality and dignity, the morality practised within homes and communities often diverges sharply from those values.
He emphasised that constitutional morality requires governance through the rule of law rather than the rule of popular opinion. Referring to the evolution of the doctrine through judicial decisions, he cited Naz Foundation v Union of India, in which the Delhi High Court read down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, holding that popular morality cannot restrict fundamental rights under Article 21. Though the judgment was later overturned in Suresh Kumar Koushal v Naz Foundation, the Supreme Court ultimately restored and expanded the principle in Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India, affirming that constitutional morality must prevail over majoritarian views.
“In our constitutional scheme, it is the constitutionality of the issue before the court that is relevant, not the dominant or popular view,” he said.
Justice Bhuyan also addressed the functioning of the district judiciary, underlining that trial courts are the first point of contact for most litigants and form the foundation of the justice delivery system. He stressed that due importance must be given to the recording of evidence and adjudication of bail matters.
Highlighting the role of High Courts, he said their supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is intended as a shield to correct grave jurisdictional errors, not as a mechanism to substitute the discretion or factual appreciation of trial judges.
He recalled that several distinguished judges, including Justice H R Khanna, Justice A M Ahmadi, and Justice Fathima Beevi, began their careers in the district judiciary.
On representation within the judicial system, Justice Bhuyan noted that Telangana has made significant strides in gender inclusion. Out of a sanctioned strength of 655 judicial officers in the Telangana Judicial Service, 478 are currently serving, of whom 283 are women, exceeding 50 per cent representation. He added that members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, minority communities, and persons with disabilities are also represented in the state’s judiciary.
He observed that greater representation of women, marginalised communities, persons with disabilities, and sexual minorities would help make the judiciary more inclusive and reflective of India’s diversity. “The judiciary must represent all the colours of the rainbow and become a rainbow institution,” he said.
Justice Bhuyan also referred to the recent restoration by the Supreme Court of the requirement of a minimum three years of practice at the Bar for entry-level judicial posts. While acknowledging that the requirement ensures practical exposure, he cautioned that its impact on women aspirants, especially those from rural or small-town backgrounds facing social and financial constraints, would need to be carefully observed over time.
Concluding his address, he reiterated that the justice system must strive to bridge the gap between constitutional ideals and lived realities, ensuring that the rule of law remains paramount.
