Congress condemns dilution of grievance redressal rules under rural jobs scheme
Jairam Ramesh addresses a press conference. File | Photo credit: ANI
Criticizing the government for weakening the grievance redressal mechanism under the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Aajeevika Mission (Gramin) rural employment scheme, which replaced Mahatma Gandhi’s National Employment Guarantee Act in July this year, Congress General Secretary (Communications) Jairam Ramesh said the government had watered down India’s most important administrative rights law.
Mr. Ramesh was responding to a Hindu report that the government had dropped several provisions that had figured in the draft rules circulated in May, some of which were also part of the previous rural jobs programme.
Key clauses that have been dropped include the provision requiring registration of a First Information Report (FIR) for prima facie evidence of financial irregularities and the requirement to submit action-taken reports to local body meetings for review and monitoring.
In a post on X, Mr Ramesh said that while the government had the opportunity to strengthen mechanisms to deal with breaches of the programme’s provisions, it had instead “completely removed these avenues”.
In a continuing trend of turning India’s most important rights-based law into nothing more than an administrative system, the Union Ministry of Rural Development (MORD) has announced a set of grievance redressal rules that further disempower workers and people, leaving their so-called right as another jumla. Where the government could demonstrate its intention to immediately remedy violations of the basic provisions of the law, it decided to eliminate these avenues entirely. The final VB-G RAM G Complaints Rules, announced by the MMR on 2 November 2026, significantly watered down several important provisions contained in the draft Rules published in May 2026. The key changes are: 1.Removal of penalties for failure to resolve complaints within the specified time frame: The draft Rules would explicitly state that failure to comply with the obligation within seven working days to Act and bring action under Section 27. This provision has been deleted from the final Rules. While the deadlines remain, there is no longer an express provision in the rules that holds officials liable for non-compliance. 2.Removal of obligation to initiate criminal prosecution in cases of financial irregularities: The proposal required the District Program Coordinator (DPC) after receiving legal advice to ensure filing of FIR and initiation of necessary proceedings if prima facie evidence of financial irregularities emerged from preliminary investigations or social audit findings. This provision has been deleted entirely. 3. Removal of mandatory oversight by elected Panchayati Raj Institutions: The draft required action taken on grievances to be placed before Intermediate and District Panchayat meetings for review and monitoring. This provision has been deleted, which weakens democratic oversight of complaints handling. 4. This requirement has been removed, making it difficult for workers to know when and where. they can turn to officials. 5. 6. This is particularly problematic where complaints involve falsification of muster rolls, fraudulent payments or discrepancies between official records and the reality on the ground. 7. Removal of mandatory quarterly reporting: The draft required the DPC to submit quarterly reports to the State Government detailing the number, nature and categories of grievances, along with their disposal and pendency. This provision has been deleted, which weakens institutional monitoring and accountability. 8. but they remove the express requirement that it be automatic. 9. Removal of an explicitly mandated State-level grievance redressal mechanism: The draft required State Governments to establish grievance redressal mechanisms at Gram Panchayat, Block, District and State levels. The final rules expressly specify only the Gram Panchayat, Block and District levels, although they allow other levels to be specified. 10.Removal of detailed appeal provisions from the rules: The proposal explicitly specified the hierarchy of appeals, the 45-day period for filing appeals and the 30-day period for processing them. The Final Rules replace these provisions with a reference to Annex I of the Act. Whether this limits the substantive right to appeal depends on the corresponding provisions of the parent law. 11. Konečná pravidla kladou větší důraz na digitální platformu určenou ústřední vládou, čímž snižují expresní flexibilitu, kterou mají státy k dispozici. Without sufficient financial allocations, ensuring the implementation of guarantees is the sole burden of the state, and there is no way for the people to secure redress for everyday violations. Using the mirage of digital governance, the rules make it clear that rights will remain on paper / in the cloud. Today, while millions of workers are unable to record their attendance through (National Mobile Monitoring System) NMMS, unable to receive their wages due to Aadhaar Based Payment System (ABPS), even complaints will now be placed in the digital domain without accountability.
— Jairam Ramesh (@Jairam_Ramesh) November 4, 2026
According to the congressional leader, one of the most significant changes was the deletion of a provision from the draft that treated failure to process complaints within seven business days as a violation of the law, potentially calling for action under Section 27. While the deadlines were maintained, the final rules do not specifically prescribe liability for officials who fail to meet them, he said.
Mr. Ramesh further criticized the deletion of provisions mandating review of complaint-related action by Central and District Panchayats, setting up of dedicated complaint counters at block and district levels and fixing a fixed day of the week for officials to receive complaints.
The Congress leader said the final rules also weakened provisions related to physical verification of complaints, quarterly reporting by district offices, automatic escalation of pending complaints and state-level grievance redressal mechanisms. He argued that the changes reduced transparency and democratic oversight.
Mr. Ramesh argued that increasing reliance on digital platforms to lodge complaints could further disadvantage rural workers who already face difficulties associated with the national mobile monitoring system and the Aadhaar-based payment system.
“Through the mirage of digital governance, the rules make it clear that rights will remain on paper and in the cloud,” he said, adding that millions of workers continue to face problems recording attendance and receiving wages.
Published – November 4, 2026 10:31 PM IST