The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to entertain a writ petition seeking constitutional recognition of a fundamental right to minimum wages for domestic workers, holding that the subject squarely falls within the domain of legislative and executive policy-making by the States.
The Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that the fixation and enforcement of minimum wages for domestic employment involved complex socio-economic considerations better assessed by state governments under the federal scheme. The Court underscored the limited scope of judicial intervention in matters requiring statutory amendments or the formulation of economic policy.
It expressed apprehension that a judicially mandated minimum wage regime for domestic workers could yield unintended consequences.
The Bench noted that compulsory wage fixation, coupled with adversarial enforcement mechanisms, might discourage households from engaging domestic help and potentially expose ordinary employers to widespread litigation. It further flagged the risk of excessive unionisation in a highly decentralised and informal sector, cautioning that overzealous enforcement could paradoxically reduce employment opportunities for the very class sought to be protected.
While acknowledging that arguments grounded in equality, non-discrimination and fair conditions of employment under Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution may appear facially attractive, the Court emphasised that the practical fallout of such interventions must be carefully evaluated. It observed that vulnerable workers could be left without recourse if institutional actors withdraw after triggering disputes, thereby aggravating precarity rather than alleviating it.
The Bench also drew attention to systemic exploitation by placement and recruitment agencies, warning that statutory wage mandates could be undermined by intermediary capture. It cited institutional experience to illustrate how a significant portion of remuneration paid by employers is often siphoned off by agencies, eroding trust and accountability. The Court further noted that several reported offences involving domestic workers tend to arise in agency-mediated engagements, as opposed to direct employment relationships characterised by personal trust.
Declining to issue any binding directions, the Court held that no enforceable writ could be granted without effectively directing Parliament or State legislatures to enact or amend law—an exercise impermissible under settled constitutional jurisprudence. Relying on the doctrine of separation of powers and precedents cautioning against judicial intrusion into fiscal and labour policy, the Bench reiterated that courts must exercise restraint in matters of economic governance.
The Court disposed of the petition with an observation that the petitioners should continue engaging with State authorities and relevant stakeholders to highlight the conditions of domestic workers. It noted that correspondence on record indicated that the issue remains under active consideration in several States and expressed hope that appropriate regulatory mechanisms would be evolved to prevent exploitation.
The petition, filed by Advocate Shreya Munoth on behalf of trade unions and civil society organisations, sought a declaration that domestic workers possess a fundamental right to minimum wages under Articles 21 and 23 of the Constitution, invoking the right to dignity and the prohibition against forced labour. It also assailed the exclusion of domestic workers from the statutory framework under the Minimum Wages Act and the Code on Wages, 2019.
Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, appearing for the petitioners, drew comparative references to international labour standards and welfare regimes in other jurisdictions, particularly in Asia, to argue for formal recognition of wage rights. However, the Bench noted that domestic workers in India are not entirely without statutory protection, pointing to the Unorganised Workers’ Social Security Act and allied welfare schemes as constituting a safety net, albeit an imperfect one.
Justice Bagchi reiterated that courts traditionally exercise heightened caution while adjudicating challenges that implicate economic policy choices, especially where legislative alternatives exist. The Bench rejected the contention that a mere judicial declaration, absent an enforceable statutory framework, would meaningfully advance the cause of domestic workers.
Concluding that the reliefs sought were legislative in character and unsuitable for adjudication under Article 32, the Court advised the petitioners to pursue remedies before the state governments or appropriate High Courts where state-specific wage notifications have been issued or withheld.
The post Supreme Court refuses plea seeking minimum wages for domestic workers appeared first on India Legal.