New Delhi: The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear a plea seeking statutory recognition of minimum wages for domestic workers has triggered sharp pushback from workers’ unions. The decision prompted protests and public statements at a press conference in Bengaluru on February 2, where unions accused the judiciary of retreating from its constitutional responsibility toward one of India’s most vulnerable labour groups.The petition and the court’s rulingThe dispute centres on a January 29 order by a Supreme Court bench led by Justice Surya Kant, which disposed of a writ petition filed by ten registered domestic workers’ unions. The petition sought a declaration that domestic workers are legally entitled to minimum wages, arguing that payment below minimum wages amounts to forced labour under Article 23 of the Constitution. This is an interpretation the court itself has upheld in a landmark judgment in the matter of Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982).Instead of examining these constitutional claims, the bench directed the unions to seek remedies from state governments. It held that fixing and enforcing minimum wages for domestic workers falls within the policy domain of the executive and legislatures. The court also declined to issue directions to the Centre or states to frame welfare measures or enact a comprehensive law for domestic workers, citing limits on judicial intervention in legislative matters.Unions term the decision an institutional failureFor domestic workers’ unions, the order represents more than a legal defeat. In a detailed public statement, they described it as an institutional rupture. They said approaching the Supreme Court was a measure of last resort after decades of engagement with labour ministries, state departments, women’s commissions, legislators and political parties failed to yield enforceable rights.“The timing of the dismissal is deeply troubling. Just a year ago, the Supreme Court itself directed the Union government to constitute a committee to examine a comprehensive law governing domestic work,” said Geeta Menon, general secretary of the Domestic Workers Rights Union (DRWU), Karnataka, speaking to The Wire.Unions argue the latest order marks a reversal, leaving millions of domestic workers; predominantly women and girls, outside the protection of binding labour law.Criticism of judicial reasoningThe court’s reasoning has drawn sustained criticism. In its order, the bench described minimum wage enforcement in domestic work as involving “complex socio-economic considerations” and warned that judicial intervention could lead to job losses, litigation against employers, and excessive unionisation.“Even while acknowledging the exploitative role of placement agencies, the court has stopped short of prescribing any enforceable safeguards,” said Chitra Gosavi, Union Coordinator of Maharashtra Rajya Gharkamgar Union (MRGU), speaking to The Wire.Union leaders argue that this reasoning prioritises employers’ convenience and household privacy over workers’ rights to dignity, equality, and freedom from exploitation. They maintain that welfare schemes for unorganised workers cannot substitute for enforceable wage rights or address the structural invisibility of domestic labour.Workers speak of daily abuseThese objections were echoed at public meetings where domestic workers and union representatives condemned the court’s stance. Speakers described the refusal to recognise minimum wages as humiliating for workers who have laboured for decades without job security, paid leave, bonuses, or regular increments. Several framed the denial as a continuation of caste- and class-based servitude, likening it to a modern form of “gulamgiri” persisting despite constitutional guarantees.Workers recounted routine abuses: denial of access to toilets, excessively long working hours without rest, wage theft, arbitrary pay cuts, and dismissal without notice or recourse. Speaking to The Wire, Franciska Kajur, Union coordinator, Mahila Gharelu Kaamgar Sangh (MGKS), Uttar Pradesh stated: “The continued refusal to legally recognise domestic workers as workers, reinforces deliberate invisibilisation, compounded by broader rollbacks of labour protections, weakening of labour courts, and shrinking welfare programmes.”Constitutional questions and state inactionAt the heart of both written statements and public speeches is a shared claim that the court’s refusal is not neutral judicial restraint but an active political choice that shifts the burden of state inaction onto the poorest women workers. By directing unions back to state governments that have failed to act for decades, they argue, the judiciary has effectively closed off constitutional remedies.The Supreme Court, in its statement, has acknowledged the exploitation faced by domestic workers but maintains that courts cannot direct legislatures to enact or amend laws. It has encouraged continued engagement with policymakers and pointed to existing social security schemes for unorganised workers as partial relief.Digital platforms and new forms of stigmaAlongside the legal battle, domestic workers’ rights organisations have raised concerns about digital hiring platforms. Unions and labour experts have criticised fear-based advertising used by some platforms to promote paid “background checks,” warning that such campaigns stigmatise domestic workers and reinforce class, caste, and gender prejudice. Claims suggesting high crime rates among domestic workers, critics say, lack credible data and portray workers as potential offenders rather than contributors to household and care economies.In the press conference held by the groups, advocates have also flagged how these platforms can function as informal blacklists, allowing unverified allegations to permanently damage workers’ livelihoods, while offering no equivalent mechanism for workers to report abuse. Practices such as filtering workers by religion have been criticised as discriminatory and unconstitutional.The road aheadDomestic workers’ unions have rejected the court’s position as inadequate. Speaking to The Wire, Lima George, president of the Bihar Gharelu Kamgar Union (BGKU) said: “We are seeking reconsideration of the order, a full constitutional hearing, and an inclusive dialogue that recognises domestic workers as citizens and rights-bearers; not informal helpers placed beyond the reach of the law.”Despite limited resources and mounting institutional resistance, unions say they will continue to organise, litigate, and mobilise. Speaking to The Wire, Sr Anshu Sadhya Lakra, Union coordinator, Jharkhand Gharelu Kaamgar Union (JKMU) said: “For us, the struggle is no longer only about wages, but about whether constitutional promises of dignity and freedom from exploitation apply inside India’s homes.”