After the Supreme Court dismissed domestic workers’ unions’ plea, CJI Surya Kant’s remarks on trade unionism sparked nationwide outrage, with activists warning that vulnerable labourers were denied constitutional protection and social security safeguards. Trade unions and groups demand accountability.
The Supreme Court bench, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, faced significant backlash from trade unions and activists following its January 29, 2026 decision to dismiss a Public Interest Litigation filed by ten domestic workers’ unions. This litigation sought formal recognition of minimum wages for domestic workers. The bench concluded that setting minimum wages for domestic labor falls under the authority of the executive and the legislature.
During the dismissal, CJI Kant remarked that trade unionism has been a factor in “stopping industrial growth.” He publicly stated that trade unions resist necessary structural reforms and discourage investment and industrial progress. Domestic worker unions in India have successfully obtained various social securities, including Employees’ State Insurance.
In light of the court’s statements, a coalition of trade unions, domestic workers’ rights organizations, and judicial accountability groups has highlighted that this effectively eliminates constitutional remedies for a highly vulnerable segment of India’s labor force.
All India Lawyers’ Association for Justice (AILAJ) has argued that the Chief Justice should view minimum wages not merely as a crucial survival requirement but as a viable policy option.
AILAJ:
“Somebody’s home is somebody’s workplace”
The All India Lawyers’ Association for Justice (AILAJ) expressed “strong displeasure” through an open letter addressed directly to the Chief Justice, signed by over 320 legal professionals and academics. This letter criticized the Court’s implication that minimum wages could impede recruitment or disrupt domestic life. AILAJ contended that the Chief Justice should regard minimum wages as a crucial policy option instead of merely a “bare minimum required for survival.”
Referring to 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. It further pointed out that in states like Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and Jharkhand, domestic work is already classified as scheduled employment, countering the claim that regulation is impractical.
The open letter also challenged the argument that the domestic sphere should be kept free from labor litigation to protect family privacy, stating that “someone’s home is somebody else’s workplace.” Excluding this domain from labor laws leaves millions of workers estimated to range between 28 million to 90 million completely vulnerable to employer exploitation.
AILAJ strongly disagreed with the CJI’s claim that “jhanda unions” and their protests have hindered industrial development, deeming these remarks “totally unfounded.” They emphasized that collective bargaining is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(c) and has historically been crucial for both industrial peace and economic advancement.
A striking critique in the open letter highlighted a judicial contradiction: a previous ruling by CJI Kant in Ajay Malik v. State of Uttarakhand (2025) recognized domestic work as a “source of gainful employment” that promotes financial independence for women, directing the government to consider legal protections for domestic workers. The latest comments from the bench represent a troubling deviation from this precedent.
Domestic workers’ unions characterized the Court’s ruling as an institutional rupture rather than just a legal setback, arguing that it denies their constitutional existence. In a press conference in Bengaluru on February 2, union members explained they approached the Supreme Court only after years of ineffective engagement with labor ministries and state departments. They criticized the Court’s justification regarding “complex socio-economic considerations” and fears about job loss, positing that it prioritizes “employers’ convenience and household privacy over workers’ rights to dignity.”
Geeta Menon, general secretary of the Domestic Workers Rights Union in Karnataka, remarked,
“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,”
Franciska Kajur from the Mahila Gharelu Kaamgar Sangh in Uttar Pradesh characterized the refusal as a “deliberate invisibilisation,” highlighting that it reinforces servitude in a time of dwindling welfare programs.
Several union and labor specialists noted that many platforms leverage fear-driven marketing to promote paid “background checks,” branding domestic workers as security threats, which exacerbates existing disparities related to class, caste, and gender. Advocates warned that these platforms often operate like informal blacklists, where unverified reports can permanently tarnish livelihoods while workers lack equal avenues for reporting exploitation.
Central Trade Unions denounced the CJI’s remarks as “anti-worker” and “an affront to constitutional values.”
Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) said,
“A complete volte-face”
The Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) issued a strong statement denouncing the CJI’s oral comments, labeling them “factually incorrect” and a “disturbing departure from constitutional discipline.” They pointed out the contradictions between CJI Kant’s recent remarks and his earlier judgment in Ajay Malik, describing the latest comments as a “complete volte-face.”
CJAR asserted that the CJI’s remarks suggesting that trade unionism obstructs economic growth and that minimum wage protections could harm workers were not casual observations but rather statements of institutional authority. They stressed that minimum wages are not a form of charity but a fundamental right, with non-payment amounting to “forced labour,” as acknowledged by the Supreme Court itself.
Central Trade Unions,
“Legitimises government’s ongoing assault on workers”
On January 31, 2026, a coalition of ten Central Trade Unions (CTUs) and independent federations issued a joint statement categorically rejecting the CJI’s assertion that “aggressive trade unionism” leads to industrial stagnation. They described the CJI’s comments as “anti-worker” and “an affront to constitutional values.”
The unions emphasized that,
“man days lost are not due to workers’ strikes but due to corporate mismanagement and irregularities.”
They highlighted that trade unions are democratic entities protected under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution and have significantly contributed to India’s independence movement and nation-building efforts.
The unions interpreted the judicial comments as providing legitimacy to the government’s ongoing “assault on workers’ rights,” including the introduction of new labor codes and privatization initiatives.
They urged the Supreme Court to retract its remarks and called for a constitutional approach that supports minimum wages and labor protections for all informal workers, including domestic workers. They emphasized that this sentiment would be reflected in the upcoming nationwide General Strike scheduled for February 12, 2026.
A common concern echoed throughout these statements is that by directing domestic workers back to state governments entities that have failed to act for decades the Supreme Court has effectively stepped away from its constitutional duty to protect marginalized labor. Nonetheless, domestic workers’ representatives remain resolute.
Lima George of the Bihar Gharelu Kamgar Union (BGKU) confirmed that the unions seek a reconsideration of the order and demand a “full constitutional hearing” to acknowledge domestic workers as rights-bearers rather than merely “informal helpers placed beyond the reach of the law.”