2010 (12) TMI 1333 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Right to Employment under Article 21.
2. Implementation and Utilization of Funds under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA).
3. Allegations of Corruption and Mismanagement in the State of Orissa.
4. Compliance and Accountability Mechanisms.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Right to Employment under Article 21:
The Court examined whether the 'right to employment' is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The judgment referenced earlier cases, such as Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Narendra Kumar Chandla v. State of Haryana, where the 'right to livelihood' was recognized as integral to the 'right to life.' However, in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, the Court held that the right to employment is not included under Article 21 but acknowledged that the law is dynamic and the right to employment might be considered a fundamental right in the future.

2. Implementation and Utilization of Funds under NREGA:
The National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) aims to provide at least 100 days of guaranteed wage employment in rural areas. The Act mandates the creation of schemes and the provision of unemployment allowances if work is not provided. The Court reviewed the statutory obligations of the Central and State Governments under the Act, including the establishment of councils, preparation of schemes, and payment of wages and allowances. The Act's provisions were designed to ensure effective implementation and utilization of funds, with mechanisms for social audits, grievance redressal, and accountability.

3. Allegations of Corruption and Mismanagement in the State of Orissa:
The petitioners alleged significant mismanagement and corruption in the implementation of NREGA in Orissa, claiming that 75% of funds were siphoned off by officials. The Court noted the shocking findings of the petitioner's survey, which highlighted discrepancies in job cards, partial wage payments, and the creation of false records. The State of Orissa denied these allegations but failed to provide specific data to counter the claims effectively. The Court observed that the affidavits filed by the State and Union of India did not statistically deny the allegations, and no final inquiry report had been submitted.

4. Compliance and Accountability Mechanisms:
The Court emphasized the statutory obligation of the Central and State Governments to ensure the proper implementation of NREGA. It noted the failure of the authorities to exercise supervisory and investigative powers effectively. The Court issued specific directions for compliance, including the filing of affidavits by the Additional Secretary of the Ministry of Rural Development and the Chief Secretary of Orissa, addressing the allegations and providing detailed data on fund utilization, employment provided, social audits conducted, and actions taken against officials found guilty of contraventions.

Conclusion:
The Court concluded that both the Union of India and the State of Orissa had failed to implement NREGA effectively, resulting in the deprivation of the entitled class from receiving employment and allowances. The Court issued detailed directions for compliance and accountability, including the possibility of a CBI investigation. The case was adjourned for four weeks for further compliance and response from the concerned authorities.