Supreme Court Paid Rs 40,000 To Agency, Workers Got Only Rs 19K; Service Agencies Biggest Exploiters: CJI Surya Kant

The Chief Justice of India, Justice Surya Kant, on Thursday strongly criticised service provider agencies for exploiting domestic workers, revealing that even the Supreme Court had paid Rs 40,000 per worker to an agency, the workers themselves received only Rs 19,000.

“I have personally and officially seen this. The Supreme Court paid to an agency for hiring a particular set of skilled employees, paying Rs 40,000, and actually those poor girls were getting only Rs 19,000,” the CJI said, adding that such agencies had emerged as the “real exploiters” in urban centres.

"In all major cities, service provider agencies have taken over. Now you only use the services of these entities, there is a word for them, which I cannot use in open court. In all major cities, these big entities are there, who are exploiting these people. They are the real exploiters," CJI Kant said.

A Bench comprising the Chief Justice and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a public interest petition filed by Penn Thozhilargal Sangam and other trade unions seeking welfare measures for domestic workers, including bringing them under the minimum wages notification.

At the outset, the Chief Justice expressed disinclination to entertain the petition, remarking that enforcing minimum wages in domestic employment could result in “every household being dragged into litigation”.

During the hearing, CJI Surya Kant observed that trade unionism had played a significant role in stalling industrial growth in the country.

“How many industrial units in the country have been closed thanks to trade unions? All traditional industries… all because of these jhanda unions have been closed. They don't want to work,” he remarked, while acknowledging that exploitation does exist but could be addressed through alternative reforms such as skill development and awareness of individual rights.

When Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, appearing for the petitioners, argued that collective bargaining works and that the petitioners were registered trade unions, the Chief Justice reiterated his concerns, prompting Ramachandran to request that no broad generalisations be made.

The Chief Justice cautioned that well-intentioned welfare measures could sometimes produce unintended consequences.

“In our anxiety for reforms, to bring something non-discriminatory through legislative means, we sometimes unwittingly cause further exploitation. You fix minimum wages, people will refuse to hire. It is a question of demand and supply,” he said.

He further expressed that the trust element between the worker and employer is lost now since they are hired through contractors. Earlier, domestic helps were treated as members of the extended family.

“When you start hiring through these agencies, what will happen? The human connection is not there. People stay in the same house, have the same food. Once that trust breaks, consequences will follow,” he observed.

Ramachandran argued that employing domestic workers without adequate wages amounted to bonded labour or begar, violating Articles 21 and 23 of the Constitution, relying on earlier Supreme Court jurisprudence. He submitted that while some States had notified minimum wages for domestic workers, many others had not, despite the nature of domestic employment remaining the same across States.

He argued that it was not a case where direction is sought to enact a law. Only an executive notification is needed to cover domestic helps under the minimum wages notification.

The petitioners also relied on a 2025 judgment authored by Justice Surya Kant in Ajay Mallik v State of Uttarakhand, which had directed the Union Government to explore the possibility of enacting a law for the welfare of domestic workers. However, when approached, the Centre had taken the stand that the issue fell within the domain of the States.

Ultimately, the Bench declined to entertain the petition, holding that the reliefs sought were in the nature of a mandamus to enact legislation, which the Court could not grant. The petition was disposed of with an observation urging States to examine the grievances raised by the domestic workers' unions.

Case: Penn Thozhilargal Sangam v Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 42 of 2026.