Open Letter to the CJI Requesting the Withdrawal of His Remarks on Domestic Workers, Minimum Wages and Trade Unions

To,
Hon’ble The Chief Justice of India,
Supreme Court of India,
New Delhi – 110001

Hon’ble Lordship,

“Labour is not content with securing merely fair conditions of work. What labour wants is fair conditions of life.”
- Dr B. R. Ambedkar

We, the undersigned, write this letter to express our strong displeasure about your observations pertaining to statutory minimum wages and the role of trade unions, that you have made while hearing the case titled as Penn Thozhilalargal Sangam Vs Union of India W.P.(C) No. 42/2026. 

The case arises from a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) demanding guaranteed minimum wages for domestic workers. Your Lordship observed that minimum wages might be an impediment to recruitment, and that the enforcement of minimum wages for domestic work might lead to disruption in domestic life. 

The comment that the regressive methods of trade unions had been largely responsible for stalling industrial growth in the country and forcing the closure of factories, has no basis whatsoever; it is well known that industrial closures primarily a result of mismanagement and wilful diversion of funds. “These jhanda unions have left thousands of labourers in the lurch and without employment eventually” is reportedly another remark made during the hearing, while referring to the closure of sugarcane and other industrial units, and adding that aggressive protest methods had often backfired on workers themselves by driving employers out of business. 

We wish to remind you that your remarks violate both the Constitution of India, statutes, and judicial precedents and go against India’s commitment to international conventions on labour, human rights and collective bargaining.   

Minimum wages were guaranteed for scheduled employment under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, and this continues into the new labour codes. In several states of India like Jharkhand, Kerala and Tamil Nadu, even domestic work comes under scheduled employment, which means that domestic workers in those states are assured of minimum wages. Minimum wages are the bare minimum required for survival of the working classes. Work, sans minimum wages, ceases to be work and becomes forced labour which the Constitution  of India forbids. 

Likewise, collective bargaining through formation of trade unions, falls under the freedom to form associations, which is guaranteed by article 19(1) (c) of the Indian constitution. Collective bargaining is not only central to democracy, but it has historically played a key role in ensuring workers’ participation in industries. Unions have facilitated bipartite dialogue between employers and workers and thereby contributed to industrial peace and economic prosperity. However, it is fact that this is a right that a small percentage of workers are able to exercise. As you are aware, more than 90% of India’s workers are in the unorganised sector, without any union to fight for their rights.

The remark by your lordship, regarding trade unions being an impediment to the industrial development of the country is totally unfounded, incorrect and give a very wrong impression to the public at large about the role of unions. Similarly, your remark on the minimum wages gives a wrong impression to the people about what constitutes decent work. 

As far as the entry of labour litigation into the domestic sphere is concerned, we wish to remind you that the ‘home’ is already recognized in law as a space of individual rights. Marriage laws, domestic violence laws, property laws, all work together to ensure democracy at home. Someone’s home is somebody else’s workplace. There is no reason why workplace laws cannot be extended to homes. Lack of laws ensuring rights of domestic workers leaves them entirely to the mercy of the employer. Live-in domestic workers often face harassment, violence and even death. 

Official government data from the e-Shram portal (as of July 2023) reports 2.81 crore (28 million) registered domestic and household workers.  However, experts and advocacy groups suggest the actual number is much higher, with estimates ranging from 4.2 million to over 50 million, and some sources even suggesting up to 80–90 million. That is a huge part of India’s workforce, consisting mostly of women, and even children, and all employed informally.     

India’s working classes are grappling with the new labour codes at the moment. The new codes have been imposed without consulting representatives of the working classes, and the codes are likely to exclude the majority of workers from statutory guarantees especially the informal workers. The executive, in its eagerness to justify the codes, has been extremely disparaging about the rights of informal workers, and of workers in general, asking them to see work as duty to the nation rather than an act of value production which deserves due remuneration. 

Your observations essentially echo the executive’s views. Remarks such as these are likely to encourage people to submit to exploitation rather than demand the bare minimum due to them for their labour. Such a mindset is bound to harm the dignity of the individual workers, and ultimately stultify democracy in the workplace and in society at large. 

Your Lordship, who is the chief custodian of our Constitution, is setting a very concerning precedent and severely undermining the very principles of our constitution which assures welfare of the working classes, and freedom and dignity of the individual irrespective of their caste, class, religion or creed. 

We are living at a time when Dr. Ambedkar’s warning is a lived reality: “Two things are bound to happen in a capitalist parliamentary democracy. Those who work must live in poverty and those who do not work accumulate immense wealth. On the one hand political equality and on the other economic inequality. Food, clothing and shelter, healthy life are not available, and independence does not matter, especially until they can earn their living with dignity. Every worker must be assured of security and a share in the national wealth.” The situation is only bound to worsen with the new Labour Codes coming to force and the MNREGA having been replaced with the VB Gram G Act. 

Your comments could not have come at a more inopportune moment when the working class across the country are gearing to fight against these anti-worker laws, and assert their rights to better labour law protections. The Trade Unions have a decisive role to play in guiding these struggles towards the path of realising the constitutional dream for all workers. 

Lastly, we would like recall the judgment in “In Re: Remarks by High Court Judge During Court Proceedings” (Suo Motu Writ (Civil) No. 9/2024, judgement dated 25 September 2024), where the Supreme Court took note that all stake holders in the judicial system, including judges have to be conscious of the fact that the reach of judicial proceedings extends beyond those who are physically present, as such this places an added responsibility on judges to conduct the proceedings conscious of the wide and immediate impact of casual observations on the community at large. The Supreme Court took judicial notice of the fact that judges need to be conscious of their predispositions and yet be faithful to the fundamental obligation to render objective and fair justice. It is in this context that the Supreme Court held that: “Casual observations often reflect individual bias, particularly, when they are likely to be perceived as being directed against a particular gender or community. Courts, therefore, have to be careful not to make comments in the course of judicial proceedings which may be construed as being misogynistic or, for that matter, prejudicial to any segment of our society”. 

It is unfortunate that this Court lost sight of this sage law during the hearing of the domestic workers PIL. What makes the matter tragic is that in its judgement dated 29.01.2025 in Ajay Malik v. State of Uttarakhand (Crl. A. No. 441/2025), a bench headed by yourself had noted as follows: “Domestic workers often belong to marginalised communities, such as Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, and Economically Weaker Sections. They are compelled to undertake domestic work due to financial hardship or displacement, further reinforcing their vulnerability. That is not to say, however, that we are declaiming this source of gainful employment that is readily available to women across all social substratas. On the contrary, we seek to affirm this important livelihood that is available to so many women, which brings them one step closer to financial security and the accompanying independence”. 

After noticing the lack of wage and other protections for domestic workers, this Court directed the constitution of an Expert Committee to consider the requirement of a legal framework specific to domestic workers and submit its report within 6 months whereupon the Government of India would consider the necessity of introducing a legal framework which may effectively address the cause and concern of domestic workers. The inaction of the Union Government to take any necessary action had forced this PIL to be filed.

Years ago, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in National Textile Workers’ Union vs P.R. Ramakrishnan & Others [AIR 1983 SC 75] reinforced the role and the place of workers in the industrial establishments and in society. To quote: 

“We are concerned in these appeals only with the relationship of the workers vis-a-vis the company. It is clear from what we have stated above that it is not only the shareholders who have supplied capital who are interested in the enterprise which is being run by a company but the workers who supply labour are also equally interested because what is produced by the enterprise is the result of labour as well as capital. In fact, the owners of capital bear only limited financial risk and otherwise contribute nothing to production while labour contributes a major share of the product. While the former invests only a part of their moneys, the latter invest their sweat and toil, in fact their life itself…  

…[Workers] are no more vendors of toil; they are not a marketable commodity to be purchased by the owners of capital. They are producers of wealth as much as capital. They supply labour without which capital would be impotent and they are, at the least, equal partners with capital in the enterprise. Our Constitution has shown profound concern for the workers and given them a pride of place in the new socio-economic order envisaged in the Preamble and the Directive Principles of State Policy. The Preamble contains the profound declaration pregnant with meaning and hope for millions of peasants and workers that India shall be a socialist democratic republic where social and economic justice will inform all institutions of national life and there will be equality of status and opportunity for all and every endeavour shall be made to promote fraternity ensuring the dignity of the individual…” 

It is this due that the trade unions seek, nothing more nothing less. Rights not freebies. Freedom not serfdom. Dignity not patronising remarks and attitudes.  

In the light of the above concerns, we, the undersigned trade unions, workers’ associations and civil society organizations, request withdrawal of these remarks.