The Madras High Court on February 20, 2026, adjourned the hearing of a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging eight specific provisions of the Viksit Bharat - Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Act, 2025 (commonly referred to as VB-G-RAM-G Act), to February 24, 2026.

The PIL, filed by advocate T. Sivagnanasambandan, contests Sections 3(1), 4(5), 5(1), 6(2), 22, 30, 34, and 37 of the Act, alleging they are unconstitutional, anti-federal, and violative of Articles 14 (equality before law), 16 (equality of opportunity), and 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution. The petitioner argues that the new legislation, which replaced the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) of 2005, centralizes powers previously held by local bodies like panchayats, undermining federal principles and rural workers' rights to livelihood.

During the hearing before the first bench comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan, the court noted that the petitioner's counsel was not prepared for full-fledged arguments and sought additional time to place more materials on record and refine the affidavit and grounds of challenge. The bench granted the request, adjourning the matter accordingly. Earlier observations from the court described the Act as a policy decision of the Union government, suggesting limited judicial interference and advising dissatisfied parties to seek change through elections.

Also Read: Madras High Court Upholds Rs 1.50 Crore Penalty on Actor Vijay for Income Non-Disclosure

The VB-G-RAM-G Act represents a significant policy shift in India's rural employment framework, aiming to guarantee jobs and livelihood support in villages under the broader "Viksit Bharat" vision, but critics contend it dilutes decentralized decision-making and imposes conditions that could affect implementation in states. The ongoing PIL highlights debates over federalism, legislative competence, and the balance between central authority and state/local autonomy in welfare schemes.

This development follows the initial listing of the plea earlier in February 2026, with the court previously questioning the petitioner on specific impacts, such as whether guaranteed work days were reduced (though the petitioner claimed conditions attached to increased days transferred powers to the Centre). No interim orders were issued, and the matter remains pending for substantive hearing on the next date.

The case has drawn attention amid broader discussions on rural job guarantees and governance reforms, with potential implications for millions dependent on such programs. No immediate responses from the Union government or other parties were reported following the adjournment.

Also Read: SBI Clerk Mains Result 2025 Coming Soon: Expected Cut-Off 73-86 Revealed