The Telangana Cabinet Sub-Committee examining the Union Government’s proposed legislation to replace the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) favoured reaching out to other non-BJP ruled States, including Karnataka and Kerala, to explore coordinated legal and political action.

The sub-committee, chaired by Irrigation Minister N. Uttam Kumar Reddy proposed consultations with the Chief Ministers of Karnataka and Kerala to assess whether the two States would be willing to pursue a common legal strategy.

The sub-committee decided to place the issue before the State Cabinet on July 2. The Cabinet is expected to take a final decision on whether Telangana should adopt the Central framework, enact its own legislation, approach the Supreme Court, or pursue a combination of legal and administrative measures.

Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Minister Danasari Anasuya (Seethakka) attended the meeting in person, while Agriculture Minister Tummala Nageswara Rao and Employment Minister G. Vivek Venkataswamy participated virtually.

Members of the committee strongly felt that the proposed law infringes upon the constitutional powers of States and contains several provisions that may not withstand judicial scrutiny. Legal experts informed the committee that they had identified multiple constitutional issues that could form the basis of a challenge before the Supreme Court.

The committee held detailed discussions on whether Telangana should challenge the legislation in the Supreme Court instead of implementing it in line with the Centre’s guidelines.

The cabinet panel received suggestions from the representatives of nearly 20 civil society organisations that urged the Telangana government to enact its own employment guarantee law under the Constitution instead of simply adopting the proposed Central framework, which they estimated could cost the State exchequer nearly ₹2,500 crore.

They also warned that the proposed changes could reduce employment opportunities for thousands of agricultural labourers. Members also criticised the Centre’s proposed allocation formula, arguing that it would penalise better-performing States while rewarding poor performers.