The care economy in India depends fundamentally on domestic workers, yet their labour remains largely invisible in law and policy. Estimates suggest India has over 50 million domestic workers, the vast majority women, many from Dalit, Adivasi, and migrant communities. Their vulnerability is shaped not only by economic precarity but by entrenched caste and gender hierarchies. They routinely work long  hours without a break or overtime pay, face wage theft and confinement, and operate in private homes where abuse often goes unreported due to isolation and power asymmetry. Despite sustaining urban households, domestic workers lack a comprehensive national legal framework regulating employment conditions, social security, or grievance redress. Their invisibility is structural, not accidental. However, the Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling in Ajay Malik v. State of Uttarakhand signals a doctrinal shift. Arising from allegations of abuse and confinement of a domestic worker, the case prompted the Court to look beyond individual criminal liability and question whether the legal framework adequately protects workers in private homes. It recognised their structural vulnerability—insecurity produced by the nature of domestic work itself: isolation within households, weak regulation, and entrenched social hierarchies.

To situate Ajay Malik, it must be read within the Court’s positive-obligations jurisprudence, under which fundamental rights may require affirmative State action, not merely non-interference. For instance, in Olga Tellis (1985) the Court read livelihood into Article 21 and in Unni Krishnan (1993), it recognised education as enforceable under Article 21. Read against this line of authority, Ajay Malik situates domestic workers’ vulnerability within constitutional commitments to dignity and livelihood (Article 21), equality  (Article 14), freedom from forced labour (Article 23), and humane conditions of work (Article 42), treating regulatory inaction as constitutionally relevant.

A Broken Legal Regime: Recognition Without Rights

Domestic workers in India, despite formal recognition under unorganised labour laws lack adequate protection. The Unorganised Workers’ Social Security Act, 2008 and the Code on Social Security include domestic workers within the definition of unorganised workers and empower governments to frame schemes on social security. However, access depends on prior registration with state welfare boards, which remains sparse and uneven. Crucially, there is no comprehensive legislation governing wages, hours, contracts, or grievance redress for domestic work. Many labour statutes are triggered only where work is performed in a notified “establishment” or commercial “workplace”. Laws such as the Factories Act or state Shops and Establishments Acts regulate industrial or commercial premises, not private homes, leaving domestic work beyond regular inspection and minimum wage enforcement frameworks. Placement agencies frequently exacerbate vulnerability by withholding documents and limiting communication with workers families, to increase vulnerability and thus complicate the process of abuse and wage claims. Complaints of violence are often dismissed by the police as private family matters.

India has not ratified ILO Convention 189 which mandates enforceable contracts, fair wages, and social protection for domestic workers. Several other jurisdictions have adopted clearer regulatory frameworks: Brazil amended its Constitution in 2013 to extend labour rights to domestic workers; Philippines’ Batas Kasambahay mandates written contracts and social insurance and South Africa’s courts guarantee compensation for household injuries.

Some States have tried to fill this void. Kerala’s draft law proposes binding standards like an eight-hour workday and social security. Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra offer contributory welfare board benefits, and Karnataka and Telangana have notified sector-specific minimum wages. Yet registration under these schemes is limited and enforcement of notified minimum wages remains patchy, underscoring how geography still determines whether domestic workers receive any tangible protection.

Ajay Malik and the Unfinished Constitutional Project

Intervention of the Court in Ajay Malik draws constitutional attention to domestic workers in three ways. First, it recognises them as a vulnerable workforce within the unorganised sector, largely women from marginalised communities requiring stronger legal protection. Second, it acknowledges the regulatory hurdles posed by private homes as worksites and the resulting gaps in oversight. Third, it directs the Union Government, through the Ministries of Labour and Employment; Social Justice and Empowerment; Women and Child Development; and Law and Justice, to constitute an expert committee within six months to examine conditions and recommend legislative reform, placing responsibility with the executive and Parliament.

To actualise this, a national system of domestic workers must entail registered agreements (wages, hours, rest, and guarantees) to document claims, portable social security (health insurance, maternity benefits, and pensions through collective contributions) and rights to form unions and collective bargaining; and enforcement controls with consequences in case of abuse (confinement, sexual harassment, child labour), with privacy protections and traceability data structures. Domestic workers have long sustained India’s households and it is now time to recognise them fully as workers, extending legal protections into private homes.