The apex court observed that while the plight of domestic workers is real, the judiciary cannot encroach upon the legislative domain.
The Supreme Court has declined to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a comprehensive legal framework and enforcement of minimum wages for domestic workers, holding that it cannot issue a writ directing the Centre and states to amend or enact laws.
In the case of Penn Thozhilalargal Sangam & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 42/2026), the Supreme Court of India addressed a critical Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning the rights and welfare of domestic workers.
On January 29, 2026, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi delivered a significant observation regarding the limits of judicial intervention in labour policy and legislative matters.
Core Issues of the Case
The petition, filed by the women workers' union Penn Thozhilalargal Sangam, sought several reliefs for domestic workers—a group that remains one of the most vulnerable and unorganized sectors in India:
Minimum Wage Enforcement: A direction to the Centre and States to enforce a mandatory minimum wage for domestic workers.
Constitutional Recognition: A declaration that non-payment of minimum wages violates Articles 14 (Equality), 21 (Life and Liberty), and 23 (Prohibition of Forced Labour).
Legal Framework: The creation of a comprehensive statutory framework to regulate working conditions, registration, and social security for household help.
The Supreme Court's Decision
The Court refused to entertain the PIL, citing the principle of "separation of powers." Key highlights from the bench's reasoning include:
1. Limits on Judicial Mandate
The CJI noted that the reliefs sought were "legislative in nature." The Court clarified that it cannot issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Parliament or State Legislatures to enact or amend specific laws.
2. Economic and Social Concerns
The bench expressed caution that judicial interference might lead to unintended negative consequences:
Hiring Reluctance: The Court worried that if strict minimum wages were enforced by judicial decree, many households might stop hiring help, leading to job losses.
Litigation Risks: The CJI remarked that over-zealous trade unions might "drag every household into litigation," turning homes into "battlefields."
3. State Responsibility
The Court observed that while some States have already included domestic workers under the Minimum Wages Act, others have not. It stated that the matter is under "active consideration" by several State governments and suggested that the petitioners should continue to lobby the executive branch rather than the judiciary.
Current Status
The petition was disposed of. The Supreme Court did not dismiss the "plight" of the workers but emphasized that the solution must come from the Legislature and the Executive.
While the Supreme Court in Penn Thozhilalargal Sangam vs. Union of India (2026) declined to force a national law, it highlighted that:
State Progress: Many states are already moving toward social security (e.g., Karnataka’s 2025 Draft Bill).
Registration Drives: States like Karnataka and Maharashtra have launched special drives (Jan–March 2026) to register these workers on the e-Shram portal to provide accidental insurance and pension benefits.
Note: Enforcement remains the biggest challenge. Unlike a factory, a "household" is a private space, making it difficult for labour inspectors to verify if minimum wages are actually being paid.
Outcome: The petitioners were encouraged to continue highlighting the issues to the relevant State and Union stakeholders, with the Court expressing hope that a "suitable mechanism" would be deployed for their welfare.