Debate on Right to Work: Recent Deletion from Policy Focus Raises Questions on Employment Rights

The recent removal of the “right to work” from a policy document has sparked debate among policymakers, legal experts, and civil society groups regarding India’s approach to employment rights. The “right to work” has historically been enshrined as a directive principle in the Constitution under Article 41, guiding the state to promote conditions that ensure access to employment. While it was never a fundamental right enforceable in court, its inclusion in policy frameworks has symbolised the government’s commitment to tackling unemployment and providing livelihood security.

Critics argue that deleting this reference from policy signals a reduced emphasis on proactive employment guarantees, raising concerns about the state’s role in ensuring job creation, social protection, and economic inclusion. In a country with millions of youth entering the workforce annually, they contend that employment-focused policies are critical not just for economic growth but also for social stability. Programs like the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), which operationalises aspects of the right to work in rural areas, remain essential instruments in fulfilling these constitutional ideals.

Supporters of the deletion suggest that the policy shift does not indicate the abandonment of employment initiatives but reflects a pragmatic approach focused on outcomes rather than symbolic wording. They emphasise sector-specific skill development, entrepreneurship promotion, and private-sector-led job creation as alternatives to broad, abstract guarantees. However, this stance has led to discussions on accountability: without explicit recognition, ensuring systematic monitoring of employment rights becomes challenging.

The debate also touches on comparative global practices, where countries increasingly link employment rights with measurable social protection mechanisms rather than aspirational declarations. In India’s context, the deletion could prompt renewed dialogue on how constitutional directive principles translate into actionable policies that secure livelihood opportunities, reduce informal employment, and protect vulnerable workers.

Ultimately, the removal of the “right to work” from official policy documents raises fundamental questions: how should India balance symbolic constitutional commitments with pragmatic employment strategies, and what mechanisms are necessary to ensure that economic growth translates into meaningful work for all citizens?