SC asks States to evolve plan on domestic workers’ wages

UPSC Prelims + Mains Study Note

1. At a Glance

• On 29 January 2026, the Supreme Court of India (Bench headed by CJI Surya Kant) disposed of a petition by domestic workers' unions seeking mandatory inclusion under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and the Code on Wages, 2019 [1].
• The Court stopped short of granting relief but urged States to evolve "suitable mechanisms" and take a "final call" on covering domestic workers [2].
• Domestic workers — estimated at ~50 million in India — remain among the most excluded categories from formal labour protections, making this a perennially important UPSC topic [4].
• Tests aspirants on: Constitutional rights (Arts. 21, 23), labour code reforms, federalism in labour, and ILO obligations [1][3].

2. Why in the News

• 29 January 2026: SC Bench (CJI Surya Kant + Justice Joymalya Bagchi) heard Penn Thozhilalargal Sangam v. Union of India, a PIL filed by 10 domestic workers' unions from across India [1].
• Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran argued that the failure to pay minimum wages constitutes forced labour, violating Article 21 (right to life) and Article 23 (prohibition of forced labour) [1].
• Court disposed of the petition without direct relief, but allowed unions to submit comprehensive representations to State governments [2].
• Triggering concern: most States have not notified domestic workers under their respective schedules of the Minimum Wages Act or Code on Wages [1][4].

3. Background & Evolution

• 1948: Minimum Wages Act, 1948 enacted — grants States power to fix minimum wages for "scheduled employments"; domestic work was not included in the Central schedule and most State schedules [1].
• 1979: Interstate Migrant Workmen Act — domestic workers largely missed here too.
• 2011: ILO Convention No. 189 (Decent Work for Domestic Workers) adopted on 16 June 2011 — first global standard specifically for domestic workers; India has not ratified it [3].
• 2016: National Policy for Domestic Workers drafted by Ministry of Labour & Employment — never formally notified/enacted.
• 2019: Code on Wages, 2019 passed — consolidates four wage laws (Minimum Wages Act 1948, Payment of Wages Act 1936, Equal Remuneration Act 1976, Payment of Bonus Act 1965); extends floor wage universally, but domestic workers' inclusion depends on State notification [1][4].
• 2020: Four Labour Codes notified (Wages, Industrial Relations, Social Security, Occupational Safety) — Code on Social Security, 2020 includes domestic workers in its scope (platform & unorganised workers chapter), but operative rules remain pending in most States [4].
• 2026: SC's current direction to States to act — a continuation of judicial nudging over legislative inaction.

4. Core Static Facts

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Economic

• Domestic workers contribute significant unpaid/underpaid care economy labour; exclusion from minimum wage depresses household consumption and perpetuates wage poverty [3].
• Code on Wages, 2019 establishes a Central floor wage below which no State can set wages — once domestic workers are notified, this floor becomes applicable; States must then set a wage at or above the floor [4].
• Informality of domestic work makes wage enforcement a high-cost, low-return activity for States — a market failure argument for central intervention.

Social

• Domestic workers are overwhelmingly women (est. 80%+), Dalit/Adivasi/migrant, living in their employer's premises — extreme power asymmetry [1][3].
• Penn Thozhilalargal Sangam ("Women Workers' Association") highlights the gendered dimension: domestic work is undervalued because it mirrors unpaid domestic labour performed by women.
• Child domestic labour remains a concern; overlap with Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Amendment Act, 2016 [4].
• Lack of minimum wage facilitates bonded labour — Article 23 violation as argued before SC [1].

Legal / Constitutional

• Minimum Wages Act, 1948 — wages fixed for "scheduled employments"; domestic work is a State subject in terms of scheduling; most States have not scheduled it [1].
• Code on Wages, 2019 — Section 6 mandates a floor wage for all employees; "employee" definition is broad but applicability to domestic workers requires State notification of the employment [4].
• Court's observation: the matter is in the executive and legislative domain — judicial restraint doctrine applied; Court preferred collaborative federalism (direction to States) over mandamus [1].
• Articles 39(d) and 43 (DPSPs) are non-justiciable but guide legislative policy — petitioners invoked them to argue State obligation [1].
• ILO C-189 (not ratified by India): sets standards for weekly rest, overtime, safe accommodation, written contracts — India's domestic law falls short on all counts [3].

Administrative / Governance

• Labour is on the Concurrent List — both Centre and States can legislate; Code on Wages is a Central law but implementation (scheduling of employment, inspection, enforcement) is State-driven [4].
• Most States lack a dedicated domestic workers' registry, making it impossible to enforce even existing welfare measures.
• National Policy for Domestic Workers (draft, 2016): recommended registration, ID cards, grievance redress — never formally adopted [4].
• Absence of a written employment contract is the norm — makes wage litigation by workers practically impossible.

Ethical / Governance

• Domestic workers work inside private homes — inspectors cannot enter without employer consent; creates a structural enforcement gap unaddressed by any current legislation.
• Court noted them as "most exploited" workers — moral obligation argument for proactive State action.
• Dependency on employer for food, shelter, and salary creates a coercive employment relationship analogous to bonded labour [1].

Geopolitical / International Obligations

• India has ratified ILO Convention 29 (Forced Labour) and Convention 105 (Abolition of Forced Labour) — petitioners argued non-payment of minimum wages constitutes forced labour under these instruments [3].
• Non-ratification of C-189 places India outside the global norm despite being a large sender of migrant domestic workers to the Gulf, Singapore, and other countries where it advocates for better treatment of its nationals — a normative inconsistency [3].

6. Recent Developments (last 12–18 months)

• 29 January 2026: SC disposes of Penn Thozhilalargal Sangam v. Union of India; urges States to evolve "suitable mechanisms"; allows unions to submit representations to State governments; declines to pass a mandatory direction [1][2].
• 2025–26: Four Labour Codes (including Code on Wages) remain unimplemented in most States due to pending State rules — a key governance gap [4].
• 2025: Several State governments (Kerala, Rajasthan) announced welfare board expansions for domestic workers — but minimum wage notification remains pending in most [4].
• ILO's 2024 World Employment and Social Outlook flagged domestic workers in the Global South as the most under-protected category in the care economy [3].

7. Prelims Hooks (high-density factual bullets)

1. The case Penn Thozhilalargal Sangam v. Union of India was heard by a Bench headed by CJI Surya Kant on 29 January 2026. [1]
2. The Code on Wages, 2019 consolidates four labour laws: Minimum Wages Act 1948, Payment of Wages Act 1936, Equal Remuneration Act 1976, and Payment of Bonus Act 1965. [4]
3. Labour features in the Concurrent List (List III) of the Seventh Schedule — both Parliament and State Legislatures can legislate on it. [4]
4. ILO Convention No. 189 on Decent Work for Domestic Workers was adopted on 16 June 2011 — India has not ratified it. [3]
5. The petition invoked Article 23 (prohibition of trafficking and forced labour) arguing non-payment of minimum wages = forced labour. [1]
6. Article 43 of the Constitution (DPSP) directs the State to secure a living wage for workers — non-justiciable but guides policy. [1]
7. The National Policy for Domestic Workers was drafted in 2016 by the Ministry of Labour & Employment but was never formally notified. [4]
8. The Code on Wages, 2019 establishes a Central floor wage below which no State can fix wages — applicable once an employment is scheduled/notified. [4]
9. Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran appeared for the petitioner unions before the Supreme Court. [1]
10. India has ratified ILO Convention 29 (Forced Labour, 1930) and Convention 105 (Abolition of Forced Labour, 1957) — both invocable in the domestic workers context. [3]
11. The Code on Social Security, 2020 (one of the four Labour Codes) includes domestic workers under its unorganised workers chapter — but rules remain pending in most States. [4]
12. The SC observed domestic workers as one of the "most exploited" sections of workers in India. [2]
13. Domestic work in India is performed predominantly by women and is classified as informal/unorganised sector employment. [3]

8. Mains Relevance

GS Paper II — Social Justice; Government Policies & Interventions; Constitutional Provisions GS Paper I — Social Issues: Women & Vulnerable Groups; Poverty & Development Issues

Specific syllabus headings:

• GS-II: "Mechanisms, laws, institutions and bodies constituted for the protection and betterment of vulnerable sections."
• GS-II: "Issues relating to the development and management of Social Sector/Services relating to Labour."
• GS-I: "Role of women and women's organisation; Social empowerment."

Plausible Mains Questions:

1. "Despite the Code on Wages, 2019 promising universal minimum wage coverage, domestic workers remain outside its ambit in most States. Critically examine the legal, structural, and governance reasons for this exclusion and suggest a way forward." (GS-II, 250 words)
2. "The Supreme Court's reluctance to issue a mandatory direction on minimum wages for domestic workers reflects the tension between judicial activism and the doctrine of separation of powers. Comment." (GS-II, 150 words)
3. "India's non-ratification of ILO Convention 189 contradicts its advocacy for the rights of Indian domestic workers employed abroad. Analyse the implications for India's labour diplomacy." (GS-II / Essay, 250 words)

9. Related Topics to Study Next

10. Common Errors / Trap Areas

1. Code on Wages ≠ automatic inclusion of domestic workers: Many aspirants assume the Code's "universal" floor wage automatically covers domestic workers. It does not — domestic work must first be notified/scheduled by the State government under the Code. This is the precise gap the SC case highlights.

2. Minimum Wages Act, 1948 is NOT repealed yet: The Code on Wages, 2019 will subsume it when notified with State rules — but as of 2026, the 1948 Act is still operationally relevant in most States.

3. Confusing ILO C-189 with C-190: C-189 (2011) is on Decent Work for Domestic Workers; C-190 (2019) is on Violence and Harassment at work — two separate conventions, both unratified by India.

4. Labour in Concurrent vs. State List: Labour is in the Concurrent List, not purely a State subject — but enforcement and scheduling of employments under wage laws is primarily a State function. Do not say labour is exclusively a State subject.

5. Penn Thozhilalargal Sangam is a Tamil workers' union, not a central body — aspirants may incorrectly attribute it to a national trade union federation (INTUC, AITUC, etc.).