Understanding the Right to Work: A Global and Indian Perspective

What does it truly mean to have the “right to work”? On the surface, it might sound like a straightforward idea – everyone should be able to find a job. But in reality, the right to work is a multi-layered concept that sits at the intersection of human dignity, economic freedom, and state responsibility. It is not just about having access to employment; it equally encompasses the freedom to choose that employment and the assurance of a dignified livelihood. Understanding this right, both through international frameworks and the Indian constitutional lens, is essential for anyone engaging seriously with socio-economic law and governance.

The right to work as a human right: the global foundation 🔗

The recognition of work as a fundamental human right has its roots in the post-World War II international human rights movement. Article 23(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), 1948, affirms that everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work, and to protection against unemployment. The UDHR, though not a binding treaty, set the moral and political blueprint that would later inform legally enforceable international law.

Building on the UDHR, the International Bill of Human Rights – comprising the UDHR, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) – formed the cornerstone of modern human rights law. Together, these instruments commit states to respecting, protecting, and fulfilling the rights of individuals, including the right to work.

What the ICESCR says about work 🔗

The most detailed international articulation of the right to work is found in the ICESCR, adopted by the UN General Assembly on 16 December 1966 and in force since 1976. Article 6 of the ICESCR provides that states parties recognise “the right to work, which includes the right of everyone to the opportunity to gain his living by work which he freely chooses or accepts.” India ratified the ICESCR in 1979 and is therefore bound by its obligations.

States are required to take “appropriate steps” to safeguard this right, including technical and vocational training and economic policies aimed at steady economic development and, ultimately, full employment. Crucially, the right to work enshrined in international instruments is not the guarantee of a job, although some treaties, particularly the ICESCR and ILO Convention No. 122, oblige states to move towards full and productive employment. At the core of the right to work is freedom to gain a living by work freely chosen or accepted – entailing access to the labour market as well as the ability to participate in self-employment and the liberal professions.

This distinction is significant. The right to work does not impose an absolute duty on the state to hand every citizen a job. Rather, it requires states to create enabling conditions – legal, economic, and institutional – within which people can access and freely choose meaningful employment.

Work and the web of other human rights 🔗

The right to dignified and fulfilling work is essential for realising other human rights such as the human right to receive wages that contribute to an adequate standard of living, and the human right to equal access to productive resources including land, credit, and technology. This interdependence is key: denying someone the ability to work is not merely an economic harm – it can deprive them of food, shelter, health, and education. Work underpins human dignity in a very direct and material sense.

Work is interrelated, interdependent with, and indivisible from the rights to life, equality, the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, an adequate standard of living, the right to social security and social assistance, and freedom of movement and association, among others.

The right to work in the Indian Constitution 🔗

India’s approach to the right to work reflects a careful balance between constitutional aspiration and economic pragmatism. The framers of the Constitution, deeply influenced by both socialist thought and the practical constraints of a newly independent, resource-limited nation, chose not to include the right to work as an enforceable fundamental right. Instead, they placed it in Part IV – the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP), which guide state action but are not directly enforceable by courts.

Article 41: The constitutional directive 🔗

Article 41 provides that “the State shall within the bounds of its economic capacity and development, make effective provision for securing the right to work, to education and to public assistance in cases of unemployment, sickness and disablement, and in other cases of undeserved want.” This clause carries three important qualifications: (a) the obligation is subject to the state’s economic capacity, (b) it is non-justiciable, meaning a citizen cannot approach a court demanding a job as a matter of right, and (c) the scope covers not only unemployment but also vulnerability arising from age, sickness, and disability.

Article 41 is not enforceable by courts, but it guides the State in policy-making and has influenced several welfare laws. As a DPSP, it is nonetheless a mandatory directive – the state must keep this goal in view when legislating and administering policy. As the Supreme Court affirmed in Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980), there is a harmony between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, and social and economic justice are integral to the constitutional vision.

Article 41 and its broader constitutional connections 🔗

Article 41 does not operate in isolation. It is part of a cluster of DPSPs that together constitute India’s socio-economic policy framework. Article 41 operates in close connection with Article 39, which ensures adequate means of livelihood and equitable distribution of resources; Article 45, which provides for early childhood care; Article 46, which promotes the interests of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes; and Article 21, which has been judicially interpreted to include rights to livelihood, health, and education. Together, these provisions form a cohesive constitutional architecture aimed at inclusive and dignified living.

From DPSP to fundamental right: the role of judicial interpretation 🔗

One of the most important developments in Indian constitutional law is how courts expanded the right to work beyond its non-justiciable origins. The landmark case is Olga Tellis & Ors. v. Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors. (1985).

In this case, pavement and slum dwellers in Bombay challenged their forcible eviction, arguing that being removed from their homes would strip them of their livelihoods – and therefore of their lives. The Court held that the right to life in Article 21 of the Constitution encompassed means of livelihood, since if there is an obligation upon the State to secure to citizens an adequate means of livelihood and the right to work, it would be sheer pedantry to exclude the right to livelihood from the content of the right to life.

The Court observed that the right to life under Article 21 is broad and far-reaching – it does not merely mean the right to physical survival but includes the right to live with dignity. The right to livelihood is an essential component of the right to life because without a means of subsistence, life would be devoid of its essence and meaning. Through this judicial activism, the right to work became indirectly enforceable as part of the fundamental right to life under Article 21.

This interpretive move was significant: thus, the right to work became a fundamental right through judicial activism. It also underscored that the right to work is not just about having a job – it is about the capacity to sustain a dignified human existence.

Freedom of choice: a core dimension of the right to work 🔗

Both the UDHR and ICESCR stress that the right to work includes the element of free choice. The state cannot force a person to work in an area they have not freely chosen. This freedom is not merely procedural – it is substantive. It means that individuals must have real, accessible options to choose from; a right to choose is meaningless if all available work is exploitative, unsafe, or degrading.

Ensuring the right to work in the broader sense entails creating employment opportunities which can ensure gainful employment and a dignified living for the worker. This dignity is supposed to come from work conditions, such as being paid a fair wage and having regulated work hours – which constitute the equally important right “in work” principle. Apart from mere employment guarantee, such work should be fulfilling and creative.

This is why, in international human rights discourse, scholars and bodies like the International Labour Organization (ILO) speak of “decent work” – a concept that weaves together employment opportunity, fair income, safe conditions, and freedom from discrimination. The ILO’s four core labour principles – freedom of association, elimination of forced labour, abolition of child labour, and non-discrimination in employment – are directly aligned with this vision of the right to work.

Legislative expression: MGNREGA and India’s employment guarantee 🔗

The most prominent legislative embodiment of Article 41 in India is the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), 2005. MGNREGA provides a legal guarantee of at least 100 days of unskilled wage employment per year to rural households, ensuring livelihood security. It is supplemented by initiatives like the Skill India Mission and the National Rural Livelihood Mission, which promote vocational training and self-employment opportunities.

However, MGNREGA is not without its limitations. MGNREGA only ensures the right to work as a statutory right, which can be amended or withdrawn as per the government’s decisions. It does not extend to urban workers, and guaranteeing 100 days of work per year falls far short of the full employment envisioned by Article 6 of the ICESCR. India has been seeing a declining jobs-to-GDP ratio, and mostly jobless growth. The path of economic development has not only failed to create adequate new employment opportunities but has also led to displacement and dispossession of people from their means of livelihood. This necessitates a more expansive, legally enforceable vision of the right to work.

State obligations: a three-tier framework 🔗

Under international human rights law, state obligations with respect to the right to work are understood in three tiers. First, the obligation to respect – the state must not interfere with individuals’ ability to access work freely. Second, the obligation to protect – the state must prevent third parties, such as employers or private actors, from violating workers’ rights. Third, the obligation to fulfil – the state must take active steps to create conditions for full employment. The state has to make sure that private companies provide a fair wage for work and do not give different salaries to men and women who do the same job.

India’s constitutional structure mirrors this tiered approach. The fundamental rights in Part III impose negative obligations on the state (e.g., non-discrimination in public employment under Article 16). The DPSPs in Part IV impose positive obligations – to build institutions, enact laws, and invest resources toward the progressive realisation of employment for all. Courts have progressively closed the gap between these two parts of the Constitution through expansive interpretations of Article 21.

The right to work as a gateway to human dignity 🔗

Ultimately, the right to work is best understood not merely as the right to get paid, but as the right to participate meaningfully in society, sustain one’s family, and live with dignity. Both international law and Indian constitutional jurisprudence converge on this point. The UDHR’s vision of work as part of a dignified life, the ICESCR’s emphasis on freely chosen employment, Article 41’s mandate to the Indian state, and the Supreme Court’s reading of livelihood into Article 21 – all point to a single, coherent principle: a life without meaningful work is a diminished life.

For India specifically, where millions remain in precarious or informal employment, the challenge is not just recognising this right on paper, but building the economic, legal, and institutional scaffolding that makes it real. The gap between the constitutional promise and ground-level reality remains one of the most pressing questions in Indian socio-economic law and governance today.

What do you think? Given that MGNREGA provides only 100 days of guaranteed work per year and covers only rural households, does India’s current legal framework adequately fulfill the right to work as envisioned by both Article 41 of the Constitution and Article 6 of the ICESCR? And if the right to livelihood is already indirectly enforceable through Article 21 after Olga Tellis, why has making the right to work a full-fledged fundamental right not yet become a legislative or constitutional priority?

References

1. https://hreusa.org/hre-library/topics/work/background/
2. https://www.ohchr.org/en/what-are-human-rights/international-bill-human-rights
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Economic,_Social_and_Cultural_Rights
4. https://www.gktoday.in/article-41/
5. https://www.mjilonline.org/2909-2/