Supreme Court: Calls for legal protections for domestic workers

Background

The case originated from an FIR (No. 60/2017) lodged against multiple individuals, including Ajay Malik, for the wrongful confinement and trafficking of a female domestic worker. The complainant, a woman belonging to a Scheduled Tribe from Chhattisgarh, had left her home in search of employment but was allegedly deceived and brought to Delhi under false pretences. She was forced to work without proper wages and subjected to harsh conditions by an unregulated placement agency that controlled her employment. Ajay Malik, a senior scientist at DRDO, employed her as a domestic worker at his official residence, having entered into an agreement with the placement agency. According to the allegations, she was confined within his residence in Dehradun while he was away on official duty, with the house locked from the outside and a spare key given to his neighbour, Ashok Kumar, who was tasked with overseeing the premises.

The complainant, having no means of escape, eventually managed to contact the police, leading to her rescue on 29.03.2017. An FIR was registered against four individuals under Sections 343 (wrongful confinement) and 370 (trafficking) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The investigation led to separate legal proceedings against Ajay Malik and Ashok Kumar. While Malik sought to have the case against him quashed on the grounds of insufficient evidence, Kumar challenged his inclusion in the charge sheet, claiming he was falsely implicated. The High Court refused to quash the charges against Malik but discharged Kumar, leading to the present appeals before the Supreme Court.

Issues considered

1. Whether the High Court rightly rejected Ajay Malik’s plea for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.
2. Whether the High Court was correct in rejecting the compounding of charges.
3. Whether Ashok Kumar’s discharge by the High Court was legally sustainable.
4. Whether India’s legal framework sufficiently protects the rights of domestic workers. 

Observations on domestic workers’ rights

• The Court recognized that despite the growing demand for domestic workers, they remain one of the most vulnerable and exploited workforces, often subjected to low wages, unsafe environments, and lack of legal protection.

“The simple reason for this harassment and rampant abuse, which seems to be prevalent throughout the country, is the legal vacuum which exists vis-à-vis the rights and protection of domestic workers. Indeed, domestic workers in India remain largely unprotected and without any comprehensive legal recognition. As a result, they frequently endure low wages, unsafe environments, and extended hours without effective recourse.” (Para 41 of the judgment)

• It highlighted the absence of comprehensive national legislation regulating domestic work, pointing out that previous legislative attempts, such as the Domestic Workers (Conditions of Employment) Bill, 1959, and subsequent similar bills, never materialized into concrete laws.

“It, thus, seems to us that no effective legislative or executive action in furtherance of enacting a statute, which could prove to be a boon to millions of vulnerable domestic workers across the country, has been undertaken as of now.” (Para 50 of the judgment)

• Domestic workers remain excluded from major labour laws such as the Payment of. Wages Act, 1936, and the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976.

“Over and above the absence of any legislation protecting their interests, domestic labourers also find themselves excluded from existing labour laws as well. These, inter alia, include statutes such as the Payment of Wages Act 1936, Equal Remuneration Act 1976, Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, etc.” (Para 50 of the judgment)

• The unregulated nature of placement agencies has led to widespread trafficking and forced labour, making domestic workers particularly susceptible to exploitation.

“At this juncture, we must fairly note that there have already been several attempts to bring domestic workers under legal protection. However, for a plethora of reasons that are beyond the scope of the present discussion, these Bills have never materialized into tangible laws or policies…… The Domestic Workers (Regulation of Work and Social Security) Bill, 2017 sought to regulate the work of domestic workers, prescribe duties for employers and placement agencies, establish Boards for their registration, address issues related to the marginalisation caused by migration, and provide for the inclusion of domestic workers in significant labour laws. However, the Bill was never enacted.” (Para 49 of the judgment) 

• The Supreme Court directed the Union Government to constitute an Expert Committee comprising representatives from the Ministry of Labour & Employment, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Ministry of Women & Child Development, and Ministry of Law & Justice.

“As regard to the larger issue of the protection of rights of domestic workers, we direct the Ministry of Labour and Employment in tandem with the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, the Ministry of Women and Child Development, and the Ministry of Law and Justice, to jointly constitute a Committee comprising subject experts to consider the desirability of recommending a legal framework for the benefit, protection and regulation of the rights of domestic workers.” (Para 55 of the judgment)

• The Committee was tasked with examining the feasibility of incorporating domestic workers under existing labour laws, recommending measures for their regularization, ensuring fair wages, providing social security benefits, and establishing a framework to regulate placement agencies.

“It will be appreciated if the Committee submits a Report within a period of 6 months, whereupon the Government of India may consider the necessity of introducing a legal framework which may effectively address the cause and concern of domestic workers.” (Para 55 of the judgment)

• Additionally, the Court underscored the need for India to align with international labor standards, referring to the ILO Domestic Workers Convention, 2011 (No. 189), which sets out guidelines for fair labour practices and protections.

“In the international spectrum, over the course of many decades, the ILO has provided various guidelines and conventions for the betterment of labour laws across the world. It is noteworthy that it has also extensively sought to protect the rights of domestic workers, which it recognises as a uniquely disadvantaged and marginalised class.” (Para 43 of the judgment) 

• The Court reiterated the doctrine of parens patriae, affirming the State’s duty to safeguard vulnerable and marginalized workers.

“Amidst this backdrop, which motions the lack of specific protections covering domestic workers in India, it becomes this Court’s solemn duty and responsibility to intervene, exercise the doctrine of parens patriae and forge the path leading to their proper welfare.” (Para 53 of the judgment)

The Supreme Court’s judgment underscores the urgent need for legislative intervention to protect domestic workers’ rights, addressing a longstanding legal vacuum that has left them vulnerable to exploitation and abuse. The ruling not only calls for legal recognition of domestic workers but also highlights the necessity of including them within the broader framework of labour protections, social security, and wage regulations. Insights from the UN Women report further emphasize the gendered vulnerabilities of domestic workers, particularly women, who face workplace discrimination, harassment, and precarious employment conditions. Programs such as capacity-building initiatives and advocacy efforts led by organizations like the Martha Farrell Foundation demonstrate the potential impact of legal literacy and collective action in securing workplace safety and dignity for domestic workers. The Supreme Court’s directive to constitute an Expert Committee reflects a broader call for systemic reforms, aligning India’s domestic labour policies with international standards such as the ILO Domestic Workers Convention, 2011. By urging Parliament to enact a dedicated Domestic Workers’ Protection Act and recommending awareness campaigns to empower domestic workers, the Court reinforces the need for a holistic approach that combines legislative measures with enforcement mechanisms and grassroots activism. This judgment marks a significant step toward ensuring fairness, security, and legal accountability in a sector that has long been overlooked, setting a precedent for future labour law reforms in India.

The judgment in the case Ajay Malik v. State of Uttarakhand delivered by Surya Kant. J on 29/01/2025 may be read here

(The legal research team of CJP consists of lawyers and interns; this primer has been worked on by Shailendar Karthikeyan)

Related:

‘We are considered servants, not humans’: Women of Jai Bhim Nagar reveal the violence of domestic work