Chief Justice of India’s remarks blaming trade unions for slowing industrial growth have sparked strong backlash from labour bodies and Left groups. Unions say the comments undermine constitutional rights, misrepresent labour realities, and echo neoliberal economic thinking.
New Delhi: Remarks made by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Justice Surya Kant during the hearing of a public interest litigation (PIL) on the rights of domestic workers have caused strong reactions from trade unions and Left political organisations across the country.
Labour groups have accused the head of the judiciary of repeating neoliberal economic views, weakening constitutional protections for workers, and wrongly blaming trade unions for problems in India’s industrial growth.
As first reported by LiveLaw, the CJI observed that trade unions and their leaders were “largely responsible” for slowing down industrial growth in India. He also expressed concern that fixing minimum wages, especially for domestic workers, could discourage employers from hiring workers and create difficulties in generating employment.
These remarks were made on January 29, 2026, during the hearing of a PIL filed by Penn Thozhilalargal Sangam vs Union of India (W.P.(C) No. 42/2026), which sought welfare measures and minimum wage protection for domestic workers.
According to LiveLaw’s report, the CJI questioned whether increased regulation and union involvement were contributing to stagnation in industries. He said that trade unions often oppose structural changes and reforms, which in turn discourages investment and industrial expansion. On the issue of minimum wages for domestic workers, the court raised concerns that imposing a statutory wage floor could reduce demand for domestic labour and make such employment unaffordable for middle-class families.
While these observations were presented as economic concerns, they immediately attracted criticism from labour organisations, which said that the remarks unfairly blamed organised labour for industrial decline instead of addressing deeper policy and structural issues.
Reacting strongly, the Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU) issued a statement condemning the remarks as
“most unfortunate, unconstitutional, and divorced from empirical reality.”
CITU said the CJI’s statement “closely resembled” the language used by supporters of failed neoliberal economic policies and accused the judiciary of giving moral and ideological legitimacy to policies that have weakened labour protections over the years.
“The insinuation that trade unions are responsible for industrial slowdown has neither theoretical soundness nor empirical validity,”
CITU said, adding that evidence from India and across the world shows that organised and protected labour often leads to higher productivity, stability, and sustainable economic growth.
Labour organisations have also raised serious constitutional concerns over the remarks. They argued that the observations undermine the fundamental right of workers to form associations and unions, which is guaranteed under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India.
Trade unions are legally recognised and protected under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, which allows registration of unions, collective bargaining, and provides legal protection for union activities. Labour groups argue that portraying unions as barriers to development effectively delegitimises this constitutional and legal framework.
CITU warned that such remarks, especially when made by the “custodian of the Constitution,” could weaken public trust in constitutional guarantees and encourage employers and governments to further dilute labour rights.
The controversy has grown stronger due to the timing of the remarks. They were made just weeks before a nationwide general strike scheduled for February 12, 2026. The strike has been called by a joint platform of central trade unions to protest against the implementation of four new labour codes.
These labour codes deal with wages, industrial relations, social security, and occupational safety. Trade unions have criticised them for weakening collective bargaining rights, making layoffs easier, and reducing job security.
CITU pointed out that the reasoning behind the labour codes is similar to the reasoning reflected in the CJI’s remarks — that labour protections are obstacles to economic growth and that weakening trade unions is necessary for “Ease of Doing Business.”
Trade unions have strongly disputed the claim that unions are responsible for industrial decline, citing official government data to support their position.
According to reports of the Labour Bureau on Industrial Disputes, Closures, Retrenchments, and Lay-offs, the number of industrial disputes in India has fallen sharply over the last decade.
In 2006, India recorded 430 industrial disputes, which was the highest number in recent history. Between 2006 and 2014, the average number of disputes per year was 354. Between 2015 and 2023, this average dropped drastically to just 76 disputes per year. Since 2018, industrial disputes have stayed below 100 annually. By September 2023, only 30 disputes were reported across the country, marking a 17-year low.
“These figures alone demolish the claim that trade unions are choking industrial growth,”
CITU stated.
Unions also argued that industrial closures are more common in states where trade unions are weak or marginalised, which goes against the claim that organised labour leads to shutdowns.
CITU further referred to official data shared in Parliament by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, which showed that more than 2,04,268 private companies were closed in the last five years due to amalgamation, dissolution, conversion, or being struck off under the Companies Act, 2013.
Data from the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) also indicates that large corporate failures, poor debt recovery, and financial mismanagement — not labour disputes — are the main reasons behind industrial stress in India.
According to trade unions, industrial decline is largely driven by financialisation, corporate concentration, policy pressures on MSMEs, and reduction of the welfare role of the State, rather than workers asserting their rights.
The CJI’s comments on minimum wages for domestic workers have drawn particularly sharp criticism. CITU pointed out that several Indian states already have minimum wage schedules for domestic workers and these have not led to job losses or employment collapse.
Labour activists argue that refusing minimum wages in this sector effectively allows exploitation to continue in one of the most informal, unregulated, and female-dominated segments of the workforce. They said the court’s concern for affordability ignores the constitutional obligation to ensure dignity of labour and the right to livelihood under Articles 21 and 23 of the Constitution.
Left political parties have also criticised the remarks. The Communist Party of India (Marxist–Leninist) Liberation issued a statement condemning the Supreme Court’s observations.
The party said the remarks reflected “narrow, anti-worker prejudices” and accused the judiciary of echoing elite concerns while ignoring the everyday realities faced by workers.
According to the party, most industrial closures are caused by poor management, diversion of funds, and speculative business practices, not by trade unions. Workers, it said, have the strongest interest in keeping industries running.
The party also reminded that important labour rights such as the eight-hour workday, minimum wages, and social security were achieved through long struggles by trade unions and workers, not through voluntary action by institutions.
Legal experts and political observers have said the controversy raises serious questions about the changing role of courts in matters of economic policy and labour rights. Critics argue that courts are increasingly adopting market-driven economic thinking instead of grounding their views in constitutional values and social justice.
For the labour movement, the concern is not limited to one statement, but reflects a wider institutional shift that normalises insecure work and undermines collective resistance.
CITU has formally urged the CJI to review and reconsider his remarks, warning that such observations could weaken constitutional democracy itself.
With a nationwide strike approaching, the episode has further widened the gap between labour organisations and the State. The ongoing debate shows that the struggle for labour rights is no longer limited to workplaces or Parliament, but has now reached the highest constitutional institutions in India.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Trade Unions
