Supreme Court Urges State Govts To Consider Plea Seeking Minimum Wages For Domestic Workers
Anmol Kaur Bawa
29 Jan 2026 6:46 PM IST
"We hope and trust that a suitable mechanism will be evolved by the competent authority in each State for the betterment of domestic helps and to prevent their exploitation," the Court observed.
The Supreme Court today urged all State Governments to consider the issue of notifying minimum wages for domestic workers, while considering a Public Interest Litigation seeking to include domestic workers under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 which is now replaced by the Code of Wages,2019.
The Court refrained from passing a direction for the petitioners' relief, citing the principle of non-interference with the executive and legislative domains. It disposed of the PIL by expressing the hope that the Governments will evolve a suitable mechanism.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was considering a writ petition filed by ten associations of domestic workers from various states. The Union Government and all State Governments/Union Terrirotories were added as respondents.
Allowing the petitioners to pursue their grievances before the respective governments, the Court observed :
"All that we wish to observe is that the petitioners may continue to highlight the plight of domestic helps and impress upon the stakeholders to take a final call...The correspondence between the petitioners' union and State Governments suggests that the issue is under the active consideration of the Governments. We hope and trust that a suitable mechanism will be evolved by the competent authority in each State for the betterment of domestic helps and to prevent their exploitation. The writ petition is disposed of, impressing upon all the State Governments to look into the grievances of the petitioners' associations as highlighted in their respective representations. The petitioners, if so advised, may also forward the copies of this writ petition as a comprehensive representation on their behalf."
The petitioners relied upon the 2025 decision of the Supreme Court in Ajay Malik v. State of Uttarakhand, which directed the Union to explore the possibility of enacting a law for the welfare of domestic workers. When the petitioners approached the Union Government on the strength of the judgment, the Centre took the stand that it was for the respective States to make suitable laws. Since none of the States came forward with any scheme, the petitioners approached the Supreme Court.
Court room exchange
As soon as the matter was taken, CJI Kant expressed disinclination to entertain the matter, saying "every household will be in litigation."
Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, for the petitioner, submitted that in countries like Singapore, one cannot hire a domestic worker without registration and has to ensure mandatory weekly-off, minimum wages etc.
CJI Kant observed that the anxiety to bring in welfare measures can sometimes bring about unintended results, which can lead to other forms of exploitation.
"In our anxiety for reforms, to bring something non-discriminatory through the legislative means, we sometimes unwittingly cause further exploitation. You fix a minimum wages....look at the need for employment in the country. It is a question of demand and supply. You fix minimum wages, people will refuse to hire and will cause further hardship," CJI Kant said.
When Ramachandran said that "collective bargaining works" and that the petitioners are "not some interlopers and were registered trade unions", CJI made commented that trade unions were largely responsible for stalling the country's industrial growth. Ramachandran requested the CJI not to make generalisations.
CJI added that it was the employment agencies that were actually exploiting domestic workers.
"These trade union leaders, they will leave these people in the lurch. People will stop hiring domestic help. 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.
In this context, CJI revealed that even when the Supreme Court hired the services of an agency at the rate of Rs 40,000 per worker, the worker actually got paid only Rs 19,000.
"When a minimum wage is enforced, these unions will ensure that every household is dragged into litigation," CJI said.
Ramachandran argued that employing a domestic worker without adequate wages amounts to bonded labour or begar, in terms of the Supreme Court's judgment in Bandhua Mukti Morcha case. He argued that it was an issue of deliberate exclusion of domestic workers by mere executive action, and it was not a case of underinclusion as per a legislative policy. He emphasised that it was leading to violation of Articles 21 and 23 of the Constitution.
He submitted that while some states have brought domestic workers under minimum wages notifcation, many other states have not. He urged the Court to seek an explanation from those States for not notifying the minimum wages for domestic workers. "Character of domestic employment does not change from state to state. Union says it is for the states to take a call," Ramachandran said.
Ultimately, the Court disposed of the matter, with the appeal to the States to look into the issue.
The plea highlights that the plight of domestic workers in the country without adequate legal safeguards amounts to 'forced labour' or 'begar'. It states :
"Non-payment of minimum/fair wages amounting to forced labour is endemic in domestic work. Domestic work has been devalued as unskilled, fortified by stereotypical notions of domestic labour being a housewife's responsibility. Viewed through this lens, the work of a domestic worker is a mere extension of these household responsibilities shouldered by housewives without expectation of pay, and as such cannot merit fair compensation in popular perception. These beliefs are constitutionally impermissible and fail to acknowledge the intensity and complexity of domestic work that require adaptability, efficiency, and time management skills. Without regulation, domestic workers' wages and work conditions are determined solely at their employers' discretion. Employers set unreasonably low wages, deduct them arbitrarily, withhold wages and terminate domestic workers without notice and pay."
The petitioner had sought the following reliefs :
(a) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction declaring that domestic workers have a fundamental right to a minimum wage, protected and guaranteed by Articles 21 and 23 of the Constitution;
(b) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction declaring that the exclusion of domestic workers from the Schedule to the Minimum Wages Act and/or the Code of Wages, 2019, is unconstitutional;
(c) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, directing the Central government and the state governments that have not already done so, to include domestic workers within the Schedule to the Minimum Wages Act and/or the Code of Wages, 2019;
(d) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, directing state governments to fulfil their constitutional obligations by initiating a process of determining the minimum wage for domestic work, and to meaningfully engage with and consult domestic workers and their representatives, including the petitioner-unions, as a part of the process;
(e) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction exercising continued supervisory jurisdiction over this matter;
The plea has been filed with the assistance of AOR Shreya Munoth and Advocates Amala Dasarathi, Gautam Bhatia, Abhinav Sekhri, Asawari Sodhi, Tavleen Kaur Saluja.
Case Details : PENN THOZHILALARGAL SANGAM AND ORS. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.| W.P.(C) No. 42/2026