Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has directed the Union Government to consider the enactment of a law to protect the rights of domestic workers. 

• This was held by the Supreme Court in the matter of Ajay Mallik v State of Uttarakhand (2025). 

What was the Background of Ajay Mallik v. State of Uttarakhand Case?  

• In this case the appellant Ajay Malik is a DRDO Scientist and Ashok Kumar (Co-accused) is the neighbor of Ajay Malik. 
• The complainant is a domestic worker from the Scheduled Tribe community. 
• The Complainant was from Birhipani Nawatoli Bokhi, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 
• In 2009, her neighbors (Subhash and Mohan Ram) brought her to Delhi promising employment. 
• She was handed over to Shambhu who ran Saint Maryam Placement Services. 
• The placement agency deployed her as domestic help in various households. 
• She allegedly wasn't compensated properly for her work. 
• On 16^th October 2016, the appellant recruited the Complainant through the placement agency. 
• She worked at his official residence in Dehradun 
• On a certain day, the appellant left for official duty in Kanpur with his family. 
• The main entry to the house was locked. 
• A spare key was given to Ashok Kumar (neighbor). 
• Appellant left a mobile phone with the Complainant. 
• Later, the Complainant contacted police alleging wrongful confinement. 
• Police recovered her from the premises with Ashok Kumar's assistance 
• First Information Report was lodged and charges included Sections 343 (wrongful confinement) and 370 (trafficking) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 
• Appellant filed for quashing proceedings in High Court which the High Court stayed trial proceedings. Later the appellant filed a compounding application. 
• The High Court rejected both applications. 
• The co-accused filed for discharge, which was initially rejected by Sessions Court. 
• The High Court later allowed the revision and discharged him. 
• This led to two appeals before the Supreme Court: 
  • Appellant’s appeal against rejection of his quashing petition. 
  • State of Uttarakhand's appeal against Co-accused's discharge. 

What were the Observations of the Court? 

• The Supreme Court made the following observations: 
  •  Regarding Appellant: 
    • Found no prima facie case established under Section 343 (wrongful confinement) under IPC: 
      • Alternative exit was available to Complainant. 
      • The complainant had a mobile phone for communication. 
      • Temporary pass issued by DRDO Colony. 
      • Complainant's no-objection affidavit denying confinement. 
    • Found no merit in Section 370 (trafficking) charges under IPC: 
      • Bulk of FIR focused on other co-accused. 
      • Complainant's Section 164 statement had minimal allegations against the appellant. 
      • Complainant's subsequent affidavits denying any trafficking or wrongful confinement. 
  •  On Criminal Conspiracy (Section 120B under IPC): 
    •  Found no evidence of orchestrated arrangement with co-accused. 
    •  Only interaction was limited to hiring the Complainant. 
    •  Found charges highly speculative. 
  •  Regarding Co-accused: 
    • Upheld High Court's discharge order and noted that: 
      • No direct allegations by Complainant. 
      • Not named in original FIR. 
      • No evidence of awareness of any wrongful confinement. 
      • Lack of mens rea or direct involvement. 
  •  Additional Observations: 
    • Identified systemic issues regarding domestic workers' rights. 
    • Noted legal vacuum in protection of domestic workers. 
      • The court noted the absence of comprehensive legislation. 
      • Domestic workers are excluded from many existing labor laws. 
      • Previous legislative attempts have failed to materialize. 
    • Directed formation of Expert Committee to consider legal framework for domestic workers focusing on: 
      • Working conditions. 
      •  Social security benefits. 
      •  Protection against exploitation. 
      •  Fair wages and regulated working hours. 
      •  Registration and documentation. 
      •   Access to welfare schemes. 
    • Called for legislative intervention to protect domestic workers' rights. 
      • The court chose not to lay down interim guidelines. 
      • Respected separation of powers. 
      • Reposed faith in legislature to take necessary steps. 
  • The Supreme Court ultimately: 
    • Allowed appeal and quashed proceedings against the appellant. 
    • Dismissed State's appeal against Ashok Kumar's discharge. 
    • Issued directions for protecting domestic workers' rights. 

Directions Issued by the Supreme Court in the Ajay Mallik v. State of Uttarakhand Case? 

• These directions represent a significant step towards recognizing and protecting the rights of domestic workers in India, while respecting the constitutional framework of separation of powers.   
  • Formation of Expert Committee: Directed multiple ministries to jointly constitute a committee: 
    • Ministry of Labour and Employment. 
    • Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment.  
    • Ministry of Women and Child Development. 
    • Ministry of Law and Justice. 
  • Committee's Mandate: To consider the desirability of recommending a legal framework and to focus on: 
    • Benefits for domestic workers. 
    • Protection of domestic workers. 
    • Regulation of domestic workers' rights. 
  • Committee Composition: 
    • To include subject matter experts. 
    • Exact composition left to the discretion of the Government of India and concerned ministries. 
  • Timeline: Committee to submit its report within 6 months 
  • Government's Role: Upon receiving the report, the Government of India to consider: 
    • Necessity of introducing legal framework. 
    • Effective ways to address causes and concerns of domestic workers.