CERTAIN COMMENTS from a Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice of India (‘CJI’) Surya Kant, made on January 29, 2026, has faced widespread condemnation by trade unions and activists. The bench dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed by ten domestic workers’ unions seeking statutory recognition of minimum wages for domestic workers. The bench disposed of the writ petition holding that fixing minimum wages for domestic labour fell within the policy domain of the executive and legislatures.
However, during the dismissal, CJI Kant orally observed that trade unionism was responsible for "stopping industrial growth”. He also noted, from the pulpit, that trade unions resisted structural changes and reforms, and discouraged investment and industrial expansion. Notably, domestic worker unions in India have been vastly successful in securing social security for domestic workers, such as Employees’ State Insurance. A unified front of trade unions, domestic workers' rights organizations, and judicial accountability groups has now highlighted that with these statements, the Court has effectively closed off constitutional remedies for one of India’s most vulnerable labour groups.
AILAJ: “Somebody’s home is somebody’s workplace”
The All India Lawyers’ Association for Justice (‘AILAJ’), has expressed “strong displeasure” in a strongly worded open letter directly addressed to the Chief Justice. This letter, endorsed by over 320 signatories, including academics and legal professionals, pointed out that the Court’s suggestion that minimum wages could hinder recruitment or disrupt domestic life. The lawyers’ body posited that the Chief Justice should consider minimum wages a policy option rather than a “bare minimum required for survival”.
Referencing Article 23 of the Constitution, the letter asserted that without minimum wages “work ceases to be work and becomes forced labour” which is constitutionally prohibited. The letter further noted that in states like Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and Jharkhand, domestic work is already a scheduled employment, debunking the notion that regulation is impractical.
The open letter dismantled the argument that the domestic sphere should be shielded from labour litigation to maintain the sanctity of the home, noting that “someone’s home is somebody else’s workplace”, and that excluding this space from labour laws leaves millions of workers, with estimates ranging from 28 million to 90 million, completely vulnerable to employers.
AILAJ strongly disagreed with the CJI’s reported comment that “jhanda unions” aggressive protests have hindered industrial growth, labelling these remarks “totally unfounded” emphasising that collective bargaining is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(c) and has historically been essential for industrial peace and economic prosperity.
Perhaps the most damning critique in the open letter was highlighting a judicial contradiction: since a Bench headed by CJI Kant himself in Ajay Malik v. State of Uttarakhand (2025) had recognized domestic work as a "source of gainful employment" that brings women financial security further directing the government to consider a legal framework for domestic workers, the recent remarks were a disturbing departure from this precedent.
Domestic workers’ unions: "An institutional rupture"
Domestic workers’ unions described the Court’s order as an institutional rupture rather than merely a legal setback, a denial of constitutional existence. In a press conference held in Bengaluru on February 2, the unions emphasized that they had approached the Supreme Court only after decades of unsuccessful engagement with labour ministries and state departments. Union leaders argued the Court’s reasoning of "complex socio-economic considerations" and the fear of job losses prioritizes "employers' convenience and household privacy over workers' rights to dignity".
“The timing of the dismissal is deeply troubling. Just a year ago, the Supreme Court itself directed the Union government to constitute a committee to examine a comprehensive law governing domestic work,” Geeta Menon, general secretary of the Domestic Workers Rights Union, Karnataka, had said while speaking to The Wire, an online news site.
Franciska Kajur, from the Uttar Pradesh based Mahila Gharelu Kaamgar Sangh termed the refusal a "deliberate invisibilisation," noting that it reinforces servitude in an era of shrinking welfare programs.
Many union and labour experts also pointed out that several platforms use fear-driven advertising to promote paid “background checks”, a practice that unfairly portrays domestic workers as security risks and exacerbates existing class, caste and gender inequalities. Advocates also warned that these platforms often function like informal blacklists, where unverified complaints can permanently damage livelihoods while at the same time workers lack comparable reporting avenues for exploitation.
CJAR: “A complete volte-face”
The Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (‘CJAR’)issued a strong statement condemning the CJI’s oral observations, labelling them “factually incorrect” and a “disturbing departure from constitutional discipline”. Also pointing out the contradiction between CJI Kant’s recent statements and his judgment in Ajay Malik, it noted that the remarks were a "complete volte-face".
CJAR said the Chief Justice’s comments that trade unionism hampers economic growth and that minimum wage protections could harm workers were not casual remarks but carried the weight of institutional authority. The organisation emphasised that minimum wages are not charity but a fundamental right and non-payment of minimum wages amounted to "forced labour" as affirmed by the Supreme Court itself.
Central Trade Unions: "Legitimises government’s ongoing assault on workers”
On January 31, 2026, a platform comprising ten Central Trade Unions (‘CTUs’) and independent federations/associations issued a joint statement categorically rejecting the Chief Justice of India’s observation that “aggressive trade unionism” is responsible for industrial stagnation. They termed CJI’s remarks as “anti-worker” and “an affront to constitutional values”. The unions also pointed out that "man days lost are not due to workers' strikes but due to corporate mismanagement and irregularities". The statement emphasized that trade unions are democratic institutions protected under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution and have played a decisive role in India's freedom struggle and nation-building.
The unions interpreted the judicial remarks as lending legitimacy to the government's ongoing "assault on workers’ rights," including the introduction of new labour codes and privatization policies.
Demanding that the Supreme Court withdraw its remarks, the CTUs called on the judiciary to adopt a constitutional approach that upholds minimum wages and labour protections for all informal workers, including domestic workers. They declared this discontent would be reflected in the upcoming nationwide General Strike on February 12, 2026.
Demanding a full constitutional hearing
Across these statements runs a shared concern that by directing domestic workers back to state governments that have failed to act for decades, the Supreme Court has effectively abdicated its constitutional role in protecting marginalised labour. But despite the setback, domestic workers' representatives have refused to back down. Lima George of the Bihar Gharelu Kamgar Union (‘BGKU’) confirmed that the unions are seeking a reconsideration of the order, demanding a "full constitutional hearing" to recognize domestic workers as rights-bearers rather than "informal helpers placed beyond the reach of the law".
