In a significant ruling with far-reaching implications for labour rights and constitutional jurisprudence, the Supreme Court of India on January 29, 2026, declined to entertain a plea seeking recognition of minimum wages for domestic workers as a fundamental right under the Constitution. The Bench, comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, held that such issues fall squarely within the domain of legislative and executive policy, particularly that of State governments.
The petition was filed by Penn Thozhilalargal Sangam and other organisations, seeking a declaration that the non-payment of minimum wages to domestic workers violates Articles 21 and 23 of the Constitution.
The Petition: Claiming Minimum Wages as a Constitutional Guarantee
The petitioners argued that domestic workers—most of whom belong to vulnerable and marginalised sections—are excluded from the protection of minimum wage laws, leading to systemic exploitation.
Key prayers before the Court included:
- A declaration that domestic workers have a fundamental right to minimum wages
- Recognition that non-payment violates the right to life and dignity under Article 21
- Protection against forced labour under Article 23
- A challenge to the exclusion of domestic workers from the Minimum Wages Act and the Code of Wages, 2019
Appearing for the petitioners, Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran highlighted comparative international practices, citing countries like Singapore, where domestic workers are entitled to mandatory welfare safeguards such as weekly off days and regulated employment conditions.
Supreme Court’s Key Concerns: Litigation, Unintended Consequences, and Trade Unions
While acknowledging the vulnerability of domestic workers, the Supreme Court expressed serious reservations about the practical consequences of judicially mandating minimum wages.
CJI Surya Kant warned that enforcing minimum wages through a judicial declaration could:
- Lead to mass litigation against individual households
- Result in trade unions dragging “every household” into legal disputes
- Create fear among employers, causing people to stop hiring domestic workers altogether
“Once minimum wages are fixed, people will refuse to hire. Every household will be in litigation,” the CJI remarked, pointing to the failures of heavily unionised sectors in sustaining employment.
The Bench cautioned that over-zealous enforcement mechanisms could ultimately harm the very workers they seek to protect, leaving domestic workers unemployed and without alternatives.
Concerns About Employment Agencies and Wage Exploitation
Another major concern raised by the Court related to the role of employment agencies.
CJI Surya Kant referred to an instance involving the Supreme Court itself, where:
- The Court paid ₹40,000 per worker to agencies
- The actual domestic workers received only ₹19,000
- A substantial portion was allegedly retained by intermediaries
“This is how the trust is broken,” the CJI observed, noting that agency-mediated employment often leads to greater exploitation, not protection.
The Bench also remarked that many reported crimes involving domestic workers arise when workers are engaged through agencies rather than through direct, trust-based arrangements.
Judicial Restraint in Economic and Labour Policy
Justice Joymalya Bagchi emphasised the principle of judicial restraint, particularly in matters involving economic policy and labour regulation.
He noted that:
- Domestic workers are not entirely without protection
- Welfare mechanisms exist under the Unorganised Workers’ Social Welfare Act
- Courts must exercise caution before interfering in complex policy matters
“Courts are very careful when it comes to economic policies,” Justice Bagchi stated, underlining that welfare design and implementation require nuanced, ground-level assessment best handled by legislatures and State governments.
Legislative Nature of the Relief Sought
The Court ultimately concluded that the reliefs sought were legislative in character, requiring amendments to existing laws rather than judicial declarations.
The order noted:
“No enforceable decree or order can be passed unless the legislature is asked to enact a suitable law. Such a direction ought not to be issued by this Court.”
The Bench observed that inclusion of domestic workers within wage schedules would require statutory amendments, which fall beyond the Court’s constitutional remit.
Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of, with a request to State governments to examine and address the grievances raised.
Federal Structure and State Responsibility
An important aspect of the judgment is its emphasis on federalism.
The Union Government submitted that wage fixation for domestic workers is a State subject, and the Court echoed this position. The Bench suggested that where States have already notified minimum wages for domestic workers, petitioners could approach High Courts to seek enforcement.
“If you think some States have taken a decision, then you can approach some of the High Courts,” CJI Kant observed.
This approach reinforces the idea that labour regulation in India must account for regional variations, economic conditions, and administrative capacity.
Constitutional Debate: Rights vs Implementation
The hearing also reflected a deeper constitutional tension between rights recognition and enforceability.
When Senior Advocate Ramachandran argued that non-payment of minimum wages violates fundamental rights, CJI Surya Kant responded pointedly:
“Such a declaration is only lip service if not implemented.”
This remark highlights the Court’s reluctance to issue symbolic declarations without practical mechanisms for enforcement, especially in a sector as decentralised as domestic work.
Implications for Domestic Workers’ Rights
While the decision has disappointed labour rights advocates, it does not close the door on reform.
The Court explicitly acknowledged:
- The plight and vulnerability of domestic workers
- The need for stakeholder engagement
- That the issue is under active consideration by States
However, the ruling makes it clear that systemic labour reforms must originate through legislation, not judicial mandates.
Conclusion: A Cautious Court, An Unresolved Crisis
The Supreme Court’s refusal to recognise minimum wages for domestic workers as a fundamental right reflects a cautious, policy-deferential approach rooted in separation of powers and federalism.
While the judgment underscores the limits of judicial intervention in economic policy, it also exposes a troubling reality: millions of domestic workers remain outside the formal protection of wage laws, reliant on fragmented welfare schemes and inconsistent State action.
The ruling ultimately shifts the responsibility back to legislatures, State governments, and civil society, reinforcing that meaningful protection for domestic workers will require political will, statutory reform, and effective enforcement mechanisms, not constitutional symbolism alone.
Also Read
