New Delhi – In recent days, the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) has come out strongly against some comments made by the Chief Justice of India (CJI), Justice Surya Kant. These comments were part of hearings in two important cases. One was about fixing minimum wages for domestic workers, and the other was on new rules by the University Grants Commission (UGC) to stop harassment of students from Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC). CJAR called these statements “unconscionable,” meaning they were unfair and shocking, especially because they seemed to go against the rights of poor and marginalised people. This has sparked a big debate about how the judiciary handles issues of social justice in India.
The CJI’s words have upset many groups, including trade unions, student organisations, and rights activists. They say these remarks show a bias against workers and students from weaker sections. In this article, we look at what happened in these cases, what CJAR said, the reactions from different sides, and why this matters for India’s poor and marginalised communities. We will also check the facts with trusted sources to make sure everything is correct.
Background: The Case on Minimum Wages for Domestic Workers
Domestic workers, like maids and cooks who work in homes, are a big part of India’s workforce. Millions of them, mostly women from poor backgrounds, earn very little and have no job security. In January 2026, a group called Penn Thozhilalargal Sangam filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court. They wanted the court to make rules for minimum wages and better protections for these workers.
The Supreme Court bench, led by CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, heard the case on January 29, 2026. But the court refused to give any orders. The CJI said the court cannot force the government to change laws. That is the job of lawmakers, not judges. He added that if minimum wages are fixed for domestic workers, it could cause problems. “Every household will be in litigation,” he said, meaning people might end up in court fights over pay. He also worried that people would stop hiring helpers because of the rules.
The CJI went further and blamed trade unions for many issues. He said, “These trade unions are largely responsible for stopping the industrial growth in the country.” He gave examples like sugarcane mills closing down because of union actions. He felt that unions push too hard and end up hurting jobs. “Once minimum wages are fixed, people will refuse to hire,” he remarked.
This case was covered by reliable news outlets like The Hindu, The Tribune, and The Economic Times. For example, The Hindu reported on February 1, 2026, that the Domestic Workers’ Rights Union (DWRU) in Karnataka was upset and wrote an open letter asking the court to think again. Geeta Menon, the union’s general secretary, said the CJI’s words were “deeply hurting and humiliating.” Live Law also quoted the CJI saying that in trying to help, we sometimes create more exploitation.
Trade unions across India reacted strongly. Ten major unions, backed by opposition parties, called the court’s decision “deeply disturbing.” In a joint statement reported by Deccan Herald on January 31, 2026, they said the CJI’s remarks showed “class bias” and went against the Constitution’s ideas of equality and justice. They pointed out that workers’ rights, like eight-hour days and minimum pay, came from hard fights by unions, not from bosses.
Why is this important? Domestic workers often come from SC, ST, and OBC groups. They face low pay, long hours, and sometimes abuse. Without minimum wages, they stay poor. The Code on Wages, 2019, talks about minimum pay, but it does not clearly cover domestic workers in all states. Groups like the International Labour Organization (ILO) say India needs better laws for them.
The UGC Regulations Case: Protecting SC/ST/OBC Students from Harassment
The other case was about new rules from the UGC in 2026. These rules, called the UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2026, were made to stop discrimination in colleges and universities. They said all institutions must set up “equity committees” to handle complaints from SC, ST, and OBC students. The rules defined caste-based discrimination as harm to these groups only.
But some people challenged this in court. They said the rules left out students from general categories who might also face caste bias. Protests broke out in many places, with students saying the rules could divide society more.
The Supreme Court heard the case on January 29, 2026. The same bench, with CJI Surya Kant, stayed the rules, meaning they are paused for now. The CJI called the rules “vague” and said they could be “misused.” He asked why the rules only talked about caste discrimination against SC/ST/OBC and not other kinds, like ragging. “There are divisions based on junior-senior everywhere, and most harassment happens on those lines,” he said.
He also worried about going backwards. “Hope we don’t segregate schools like in the US,” he remarked, meaning he did not want India to have separate systems based on caste. He noted that some SC people are now rich, and asked if we are moving away from a casteless society.
This was reported by trusted sources like Frontline (The Hindu), Times of India, and Live Law. For instance, Times of India on January 30, 2026, quoted the CJI saying the rules might create new problems instead of solving old ones. The court asked the UGC and government to reply by March 19, 2026.
Student groups had mixed reactions. Some, like the All India Students’ Association (AISA), called the stay a win for “Brahmanism” and demanded a Rohith Act, named after Rohith Vemula, a student who died by suicide in 2016 after facing caste harassment. NewsClick reported on January 31, 2026, that AISA said the rules were needed to protect marginalised students. But others felt the rules were unfair to general category students.
The UGC rules came after many sad cases of student suicides. Rohith Vemula’s case led to big protests. The rules were meant to help, but the court felt they were not balanced.
CJAR’s Statement: Calling Out the Unfairness
The Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) is a group that watches how judges work and pushes for better courts. On February 1, 2026, they put out a strong statement. It was shared widely on social media, like by lawyer Prashant Bhushan on X (formerly Twitter).
CJAR said the CJI’s comments in both cases were “unconscionable” and hurt the poor and marginalised. In the domestic workers case, they felt blaming unions ignored how unions fight for rights. “The eight-hour workday, minimum wages, social security, and basic labour protections were only achieved through sustained struggles by workers,” they said, quoting from a Facebook post by AICCTU.
In the UGC case, CJAR said the CJI’s words downplayed caste discrimination. They pointed out that harassment of SC/ST/OBC students is real and needs special rules. “Such remarks reflect a class bias in judicial reasoning,” they added, echoing the trade unions.
Prashant Bhushan, a key member of CJAR, tweeted the full statement with images. It called on the CJI to take back his words and think about the Constitution’s promise of equality.
We checked this with sources. The statement matches what was posted on X, as per the search results. Reliable sites like The Wire and Scroll.in also talked about similar issues, though not directly about CJAR’s statement.
Reactions from Unions, Activists, and Experts
Many people spoke out. Trade unions like the All India Central Council of Trade Unions (AICCTU) said on Facebook that the CJI’s remarks were “shocking.” They reminded that workers’ losses are often due to bad management by companies, not unions.
Geeta Menon from DWRU told The Hindu that domestic workers have fought for years, and the court’s dismissal ignored their pain.
Student groups protested. India Today reported on January 29, 2026, that the UGC rules case led to uproar, with some saying victims should not be left helpless.
Experts like Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, a journalist, shared related stories on X, linking to bigger issues of power and money.
Even the Opposition parties jumped in. Deccan Herald quoted them saying the remarks go against social justice.
A general quote from Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, who wrote India’s Constitution, fits here: “Political democracy cannot last unless there lies at the base of it social democracy.” This shows why protecting the marginalised is key.
Why These Cases Matter for India’s Poor and Marginalised
India has over 4 million domestic workers, as per ILO estimates. Most are poor women from rural areas. Without minimum wages, they earn as little as Rs 5,000 a month in cities, far below living costs.
For students, a 2025 report by the National Commission for Scheduled Castes showed rising complaints of discrimination in colleges. Suicides like Rohith Vemula’s highlight the problem.
The CJI’s remarks touch on big debates: Should courts make policies? How to balance rights without causing new issues?
The Constitution’s Articles 14 (equality) and 21 (right to life) protect workers and students. But implementation is weak.
What Happens Next?
The domestic workers case is set for March 13, 2026. The UGC case needs replies by March 19.
CJAR wants the CJI to withdraw his words. Unions plan protests.
The government might step in with new laws.
FAQs
What did the CJI exactly say in the domestic workers case?
The CJI said fixing minimum wages could lead to court cases in every home. He blamed unions for closing industries and said people might stop hiring helpers. This was reported by Live Law and The Economic Times on January 29, 2026.
Why did the Supreme Court stay the UGC rules?
The court said the rules were vague and could be misused. They only protected SC/ST/OBC students from caste bias, leaving out others. Ragging was not covered. As per SCObserver and Times of India reports from January 29-30, 2026.
What is CJAR and why did they issue this statement?
CJAR is a group for fair courts. They felt the CJI’s words hurt poor people and went against justice. Their statement, shared by Prashant Bhushan on X on February 1, 2026, calls for withdrawal.
Are domestic workers covered under minimum wage laws in India?
Not fully. Some states like Karnataka have notifications, but nationally, it’s unclear. The Code on Wages, 2019, aims to help, but enforcement is poor, as per ILO and union reports.
How common is caste harassment in Indian colleges?
Very common. A 2025 NCSC report showed over 1,000 complaints yearly. Cases like Rohith Vemula show the pain. The UGC rules tried to fix this but got stayed.
Can the Supreme Court make laws for workers’ rights?
No, but it can guide governments. In this case, it refused, saying it’s for lawmakers. This follows past rulings like Vishaka guidelines for sexual harassment.
What can poor workers do if exploited?
They can go to labour courts or unions. But many fear losing jobs. Groups like DWRU help with advice and fights.
Will the CJI take back his words?
We don’t know. But pressure from groups might lead to clarifications. Past CJIs have done so in big cases.
How does this affect India’s push for equality?
It shows gaps in protecting marginalised groups. Activists say judiciary must support, not blame, the weak.
What is the role of trade unions in India?
Unions fight for better pay and conditions. They led to laws like the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. But some say they cause strikes that hurt growth.