On Friday(20th Sept),The Supreme Court of India declined to hear the petition of former Google employee Zahid Showkat, who alleged his dismissal was due to religious discrimination. Despite raising concerns with various government bodies, the court advised him to pursue alternative legal remedies.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: On Friday(20th Sept), the Supreme Court of India declined to hear a petition filed by former Google employee Zahid Showkat alias Mir, who alleged that his dismissal from the tech giant was a result of religious discrimination. Showkat had accused Google officials of targeting him due to his religion, and he had approached various government bodies for intervention, including the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) and the Ministry of Minority Affairs.
Showkat’s legal challenge was based on claims that Google, a private employer, unfairly terminated him due to his religious background. Despite raising these concerns with the highest authorities, his plea was ultimately dismissed by the Supreme Court, which directed him to seek alternative legal remedies.
A three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, refused to intervene in the matter, categorizing it as a private employment dispute. The bench, which also included Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, noted that the case fell under the purview of industrial law and the labour courts, urging Showkat to pursue his case in that forum.
“It’s a private dispute. You must seek legal recourse according to the law,”
-said Chief Justice Chandrachud during the hearing.
The bench emphasized that the issue at hand was already being addressed in a labour court, a more appropriate venue for employment disputes involving private companies. The court also made it clear that if Showkat’s case was not resolved in his favor at the labour court level, he still had the option to challenge that decision through the appropriate legal channels.
“The Prime Minister’s Office can’t do anything when the matter is in court,”
-added Chief Justice Chandrachud, underscoring the separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive.
During the virtual court hearing, Zahid Showkat argued that his dismissal was motivated by religious discrimination. He claimed that Google officials conspired to force him out of the company due to his religious beliefs, and that he was seeking justice for what he believed to be wrongful termination. Showkat had earlier approached both the PMO and the Ministry of Minority Affairs in an attempt to gain government support, but neither body intervened.
Despite these serious allegations, the Supreme Court maintained that it could not interfere in the matter. Chief Justice Chandrachud reiterated the principle that private employment matters, even when involving claims of discrimination, must be addressed through industrial law rather than executive or judicial intervention in the first instance.
“The executive authority lacks the power to reinstate you. This is a private matter between you and your employer, and the government cannot compel a private company to reinstate you.”
-stated the CJI.
The Supreme Court further explained the limits of its jurisdiction, noting that government bodies or public sector entities fall under its direct oversight, but private employers, such as Google, do not. Therefore, the appropriate legal remedy for Showkat would be under industrial law, which is specifically designed to handle disputes between employees and private companies.
“If this were a termination by the government, we could have exercised our jurisdiction. The government is subject to our jurisdiction, but a private employer is not. You need to seek remedies under industrial law.”
-added the Chief Justice.
The Supreme Court’s decision sets a clear precedent regarding the limits of government and judicial intervention in cases involving private employers, even when serious allegations such as religious discrimination are made. The court’s advice to Showkat was unequivocal: seek justice through the labour courts and industrial law, where private employment disputes are typically resolved.
While the Supreme Court’s dismissal of his petition might seem like a setback for Showkat, he has been provided with a clear legal pathway forward. The labour courts, where the matter is already being heard, are designed to handle such employment-related disputes, offering employees recourse against wrongful termination, even in cases involving claims of discrimination.
If the labour court dismisses his claims, Showkat retains the right to appeal the decision to higher courts, but as far as the Supreme Court is concerned, the judiciary cannot involve itself in disputes between private parties unless there is a clear violation of public law or constitutional rights by the government.
Showkat’s allegations against Google, one of the largest multinational tech companies, have highlighted the challenges employees may face when they believe they have been wrongfully terminated based on religious or other discriminatory grounds. However, the legal process provides avenues for recourse, and Showkat will need to navigate these through the established industrial law framework in India.
