Editorials/Opinions Analysis For UPSC 19 December 2025

Content

1. Replacing MGNREGA: Constitutional, Federal and Social Implications
2. India’s Nuclear Energy Push: Development, Decarbonisation and the SHANTI Bill

---

Replacing MGNREGA: Constitutional, Federal and Social Implications

---

Why in News?

• The Central Government introduced and passed a Bill in the Lok Sabha to replace the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), 2005.
  • The Bill, titled Viksit Bharat – G RAM G Bill, 2025, was passed using the government’s numerical majority.
• The proposed law has triggered strong opposition, particularly from:
  • Left parties
  • Labour unions
  • Civil society groups
• Critics argue that:
  • The Bill fundamentally alters the nature of MGNREGA
  • It represents an attack on constitutional principles, especially Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) and federalism.
• Demand raised for:
  • Reference to the Parliamentary Standing Committee.

Relevance

• GS II: Constitution, DPSPs, Parliament, federalism, social justice
• GS III: Employment, rural distress, inequality, welfare economics

Practice Question

MGNREGA represented a partial realisation of Article 41 of the Constitution. Critically examine whether the proposed replacement undermines the constitutional vision of economic democracy.(250 Words)

MGNREGA: Constitutional & Legal Foundations (Basics)

Constitutional Basis

• Article 41 (DPSP):
  “The State shall, within the limits of its economic capacity and development, make effective provision for securing the right to work…”

Constituent Assembly Debate

• Socialist members:
  • Wanted Right to Work as a Fundamental Right
• Capitalist/liberal members:
  • Opposed enforceable obligation
• Compromise:
  • Included under Directive Principles
• Dr. B.R. Ambedkar:
  • Called DPSPs a “novel feature”
  • Described them as:
    • “Instruments of instruction”
    • “Essential for economic democracy”
• K.T. Shah:
  • Dismissed them as “pious wishes”

MGNREGA (2005) was the closest statutory realisation of Article 41.

Why MGNREGA Was a Landmark Law ?

Political Context (2004–05)

• UPA government without majority
• Dependent on Left party support
• Left parties:
  • Played decisive role in:
    • Drafting
    • Universalisation
    • Rights-based design

Core Features of MGNREGA

• Partial legal recognition of Right to Work
• 100 days guaranteed wage employment
• Demand-driven:
  • Work must be provided on demand
• Universality:
  • Any rural adult volunteering for unskilled manual work
• Gender justice:
  • Equal wages for men and women
• Fiscal responsibility:
  • Entire wage cost borne by Centre
• Federal balance:
  • States share ~10%
  • States & Panchayats design works
• Decentralisation:
  • Panchayats identify, plan, execute works

Global significance

• First large-scale demand-driven employment guarantee in a capitalist economy.

What the New Bill Changes ?

1. From Demand-Driven to Normative Allocation

• MGNREGA:
  • Demand determines expenditure
  • Centre legally bound to provide funds
• New Bill:
  • Employment limited by “normative financial allocations”
  • Decided unilaterally by Centre
  • No legal obligation if demand exceeds allocation

Implication

• Right to work becomes contingent, not guaranteed.

2. Shift in Fiscal Burden → Federal Erosion

• States’ share increased to 40%
• Occurs when:
  • States already face:
    • GST compensation loss
    • Reduced tax devolution
• Strong centralisation:
  • Project design
  • Digital audits
  • Monitoring controlled by Centre

Constitutional Issue

• Assault on federalism (basic feature doctrine).

3. Prohibition of Work During Peak Agricultural Season

• Clause bans MGNREGA work during peak sowing/harvest.

Why Critics Call It Class-Biased

• Reality:
  • Workers choose MGNREGA only when:
    • Farm work unavailable, or
    • Agricultural wages < MGNREGA wages
• Effect:
  • Weakens workers’ bargaining power
  • Forces acceptance of:
    • Lower wages
    • Exploitative terms
• Women most affected:
  • Already earn less in agriculture

4. Digital Conditionalities & Exclusion

• Mandatory:
  • Aadhaar linkage
  • Online attendance
  • Digitised wage payment
• Evidence shows:
  • Connectivity gaps
  • Authentication failures
• Result:
  • Exclusion of genuine workers
  • Delayed or denied wages

5. Social Justice Rollback

• Composition of MGNREGA workforce:
  • Adivasis: ~18% (population share ~8.6%)
  • SCs: ~19%
  • Women: >50%
• Over two-thirds from constitutionally protected groups
• New Bill:
  • Removes their representation from:
    • Advisory / redress councils

Implication

• Violation of:
  • Equality
  • Social justice ethos of the Constitution

Empirical Evidence of Distress (Data-Driven Critique)

• Workers:
  • Increased from ~2 crore → 7.7–8.9 crore
• Budget:
  • Never exceeded 0.2% of GDP
• 2024–25:
  • 8.9 crore demanded work
  • Only 7.9 crore provided
  • 99 lakh turned away
• Average work per household:
  • <50 days, not 100
• Wage arrears:
  • Up to ₹8,000 crore

Inference

• Promise of 125 days seen as rhetorical, not real.

Political Economy Perspective

• Since 2014:
  • Declining real allocations to MGNREGA
  • Rising:
    • Corporate tax cuts
    • Loan write-offs
• Critics argue:
  • Welfare compression + corporate expansion
• Replacing MGNREGA:
  • Seen as part of neoliberal restructuring of welfare

Constitutional Concerns Summarised

• Dilution of Article 41
• Undermining economic democracy
• Erosion of:
  • Federalism
  • Decentralisation
  • Social justice
• DPSPs treated as dispensable, not guiding principles

Why Standing Committee Scrutiny is Demanded ?

• Bill:
  • Alters rights-based welfare architecture
  • Has constitutional implications
• Standing Committee allows:
  • Stakeholder consultation
  • Evidence-based scrutiny
  • Parliamentary accountability

Conclusion

MGNREGA was not merely a welfare scheme but a constitutional experiment—a statutory bridge between the Directive Principles and lived economic democracy. The proposed replacement, by shifting from demand-driven rights to budget-controlled entitlements, centralising power, and weakening labour protections, is viewed by critics as a regression from rights to discretion. In this sense, the debate is not only about employment policy but about the soul of India’s constitutional commitment to social and economic justice.

---

India’s Nuclear Energy Push: Development, Decarbonisation and the SHANTI Bill

---

Why in News?

• Parliament passed the Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India (SHANTI) Bill, 2025.
• The Bill:
  • Consolidates provisions of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 and Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010.
  • Supports India’s target of 100 GW nuclear installed capacity by mid-century.
• The move has reignited debate on:
  • Nuclear power’s role in India’s development trajectory
  • Energy–HDI linkage
  • Decarbonisation and baseload electricity needs.

Relevance

• GS III: Energy security, nuclear technology, climate change
• GS II: Regulatory institutions, public policy, legislation

Practice Question

In the context of India’s development and decarbonisation goals, examine the role of nuclear energy and critically analyse the significance of the SHANTI Bill, 2025.(250 Words)

Energy and Human Development: Conceptual Basics

Energy–Development Link

• Earl Cook (Scientific American, 1971):
  • Human progress is closely tied to per capita energy consumption.
  • Energy needs evolve from:
    • Food (primitive stage)
    • Housing & commerce (hunting stage)
    • Agriculture, industry, transport (agrarian–industrial stage)
    • Digital infrastructure (technological stage)

Human Development Index (HDI)

• Composite index of:
  • Per capita income
  • Education
  • Health
• Strong correlation between:
  • HDI and per capita Final Energy Consumption (FEC)

Inference

• High human development is energy-intensive, especially in the digital era.

India’s Developmental Energy Requirement

Target HDI

• G-20 peers: HDI > 0.9
• To reach HDI ≈ 0.9:
  • India needs ~24,000 TWh/year of energy generation
  • Source: Current Science (2022)

Energy Use Pattern

• ~60% as electricity
• ~40% for:
  • Hydrogen production (via electrolysers)
  • Decarbonisation of:
    • Steel
    • Fertilisers
    • Plastics

Present Situation

• Electricity generation (2023–24): ~1,950 TWh
• CAGR: ~4.8%
• At this rate:
  • 24,000 TWh achievable in 4–5 decades

The Decarbonisation Constraint

Structural Challenges

1. High fossil fuel dependence
2. Electricity share in FEC:
   1. Only ~22%, must rise sharply
3. Commitment to:
   1. Net-zero trajectory
   1. Climate goals

Renewable Energy Limits

• Hydropower:
  • Geographical and ecological constraints
• Solar & Wind:
  • Land scarcity in a densely populated country
  • Intermittency
  • Seasonal variability
• Energy Storage:
  • Expensive
  • Seasonal storage is economically prohibitive

Conclusion

• Renewables alone cannot sustain high-HDI energy demand.

Why Nuclear Energy Becomes Critical ?

Baseload Requirement

• Digital economy + electrified end-uses require:
  • 24×7 reliable power
• Nuclear power:
  • Non-intermittent
  • High capacity factor
  • Low lifecycle carbon emissions

Strategic Role

• Complements:
  • Solar
  • Wind
  • Hydro
• Enables:
  • Affordable electricity
  • Grid stability
  • Deep decarbonisation

India’s Nuclear Capability: Ground Reality

Indigenous Nuclear Ecosystem

• Import dependency:
  • Only uranium
• Indigenous strengths:
  • Fuel fabrication
  • Heavy water production
  • Reactor equipment manufacturing
  • Waste reprocessing

PHWR Programme

• Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors:
  • Indigenous design
  • Highest capacity: 700 MW
• Status:
  • 3 units operational
  • 4th nearing completion
  • 2 under advanced construction
• 2017:
  • Sanction of 10 × 700 MW PHWRs

Nuclear Safety & Regulation

• Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB):
  • Established in the 1980s
  • Developed regulatory capacity
• BARC:
  • Spent fuel reprocessing
  • Nuclear waste management

Inference

• India’s nuclear programme is:
  • Technically mature
  • Safety-oriented
  • Cost-competitive in baseload terms

The SHANTI Bill, 2025: Core Provisions

What the Bill Does

• Overarching nuclear legislation
• Integrates:
  • Atomic Energy Act, 1962
  • Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010
• AERB:
  • “Deemed” to be constituted under the Act
• Safety responsibility:
  • Primarily on licensee/operator

Strategic Intent

• Facilitate:
  • Nuclear scale-up
  • Private & industrial participation
  • Long-term capacity addition
• Support:
  • 100 GW nuclear target

Significance of the SHANTI Bill

Developmental Significance

• Enables:
  • High-energy, high-HDI growth
• Supports:
  • Digital economy
  • Industrial decarbonisation

Climate Significance

• Low-carbon baseload power
• Reduces fossil fuel lock-in

Strategic & Technological Significance

• Energy sovereignty
• Indigenous nuclear ecosystem
• Reduced import vulnerability

Concerns & Critical Perspective 

• Regulatory independence:
  • AERB still linked to Department of Atomic Energy
• Nuclear liability framework:
  • Public risk vs private participation
• Long gestation periods
• Public perception & safety concerns
• Cost overruns in large reactors

Way Forward

• Strengthen:
  • Independent nuclear regulation
• Parallel push:
  • Renewables + grid modernisation
• Invest in:
  • Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)
  • Advanced fuel cycles
• Transparent safety communication

Conclusion

India’s aspiration to achieve high human development, deep decarbonisation, and digital-era growth makes energy availability the binding constraint. Given the limitations of renewables and storage, nuclear energy emerges not as a choice, but as a necessity. The SHANTI Bill, 2025, therefore, represents a bold and strategic legislative step to align India’s energy architecture with its developmental ambitions. Ambitious targets backed by institutional and technological capacity are indispensable if India is to transition from a developing to a developed nation.

---