The Supreme Court to Clarify the Definition of “Industry”

 

New Delhi, IFWJ Headquarters
Circular No. 5/2026

Comrades,

The Nine-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India has concluded three days of hearing in
Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa and State of U.P. v. Jai Bir Singh.

Your organisation, the Indian Federation of Working Journalists (IFWJ), presented its submissions through the Secretary-General, who is also an Advocate-on-Record before the Supreme Court of India.

The IFWJ strongly emphasised the Triple Test theory of “industry”, as laid down by Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer in the landmark seven-judge bench decision of 1978. The test lays down three essential conditions:

1.      Systematic Activity – The activity must be organised and structured (e.g., factory, hospital, educational institution).

2.      Employer–Employee Relationship – There must exist cooperation between employer and employees, irrespective of profit motive.

3.      Production/Distribution of Goods or Services – The activity must aim at satisfying human wants or needs, including sectors such as healthcare, education, and transport.

Justice Krishna Iyer had also clarified those sovereign functions of the State—such as police, judiciary, and core governmental functions—as well as domestic services, fall outside the scope of “industry.”

The IFWJ highlighted that, from the perspective of workers, the nature of the institution—whether charitable, religious, or educational—is immaterial. For instance, if hundreds of workers are engaged in preparing laddoos for the Tirupati Temple, they should be afforded protection under labour laws, just like workers in any commercial establishment. Similarly, a driver’s entitlement to protection should not depend on whether he is employed by a school, a factory, or any other institution.

Following the decision in Bangalore Water Supply, several cases raised concerns about the breadth of the definition. In State of U.P. v. Jai Bir Singh (2005), a Constitution Bench referred the issue to a larger bench. Subsequently, in 2016, then Chief Justice T. S. Thakur recommended that the matter be placed before a Nine-Judge Bench.

After nearly four decades, the present Chief Justice has constituted the Nine-Judge Bench to finally settle the law. A definitive and authoritative interpretation of “industry” is now expected.

The IFWJ also opposed the subsuming of the Working Journalists Act under the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020, and advocated for an expanded scope to include journalists working in electronic, digital, and social media.

The Bench is headed by the Chief Justice of India and comprises Justices B. V. Nagarathna, P. S. Narasimha, Dipankar Datta, Ujjal Bhuyan, Satish Chandra Sharma, Joymalya Bagchi, Alok Aradhe, and Vipul M. Pancholi.

Thanking you,
With greetings on the occasion of Navratri and Eid al-Fitr.

Sincerely yours,
Paramanand Pandey

 

 

Judiciary is, without doubt, neck-deep in corruption and needs to be cleaned

A few of my friends have drawn my attention to my earlier post that the credibility of the judiciary is at its ebb, although it still enjoys more trust from the people than any other organs of governance. A harassed person, tired of everywhere, has nowhere to go except the judiciary to get some relief. But it is equally true of other departments. For example, corruption in hospitals and in the field of medicine is known to everybody, yet we still go to hospitals, private clinics and doctors, knowing the fact that a common man is bound to be cheated by them, but they still go to them because there is no alternative left for them.

So much so. Even in the field of education, a common person is cheated. They know it, but there is no alternative as the TINA factor works. Most of the good schools and educational institutions not only charge hefty fees but also demand huge donations for admissions. Teachers do not properly teach the students, driven by the greed of earning money in the name of private tuition. But even then, one sends their children to the schools and institutions at the pain of extortion by them. Therefore, it makes no sense that courts are still considered the last hope of the general public. But then, it does not mean that courts should not be subjected to public criticism,

When speaking of the judiciary, we do not mean only the High Courts and the Supreme Court. There is hardly any doubt that the system is neck-deep in corruption. Go to any district or Tehsil, where you cannot get even the next dates of hearings or any basic information without bribing the clerks, who sit barely a few feet away from the seat of the judges. Corruption in the judiciary does not mean only the judges of the higher judiciary; it concerns the entire system of the judiciary, including orderlies and clerks to judges. Therefore, the judges should not be unnecessarily thin-skinned; instead, they should seriously consider how to restore the people's confidence.

The trust and respect of the common man cannot be restored by instilling fear among them by using the sword of contempt of the court, but by removing the drawbacks and dirt, which are there to be seen by one and all. Cleanliness in the judicial system is the need of the hour, but it cannot be achieved by keeping all the doors and windows tightly shut. It can be done only by involving the common man.   

Judiciary suffers from a deep crisis of credibility

It is often said that sunlight is the best disinfectant — a reminder that transparency is the foundation of reliability. Without transparency, public trust or faith cannot meaningfully exist. Undeniably, the judiciary has traditionally enjoyed greater public confidence than any other constitutional branch, whether Parliament or the Executive. Even the so-called fourth pillar of democracy — the media — has, in recent years, been grappling with a serious crisis of credibility.

However, signs now suggest that the judiciary’s own trustworthiness is also facing erosion. The subordinate judiciary at the district level is frequently criticised by the public for perceived corruption. While the higher judiciary continues to command relatively greater confidence, recent developments indicate that this faith, too, may be waning. Government data has revealed a striking figure that has reignited debate over judicial accountability in India: over the past decade, more than 8,200 complaints have reportedly been received against sitting judges of the High Courts and the Supreme Court.

This number raises serious questions not only about judicial conduct but also about the manner in which such complaints are processed. How many of these complaints have actually reached a logical conclusion remains an open and pressing question. Depending on the findings of in-house enquiries, outcomes may range from dismissal of complaints to informal advisories, while, in the rarest instances, matters proceed towards impeachment through Parliament — a path that has historically been exceptional and politically complex. The public understandably expects timely inquiries and decisive action against judges found wanting, rather than processes that move at a glacial pace.

Although confidentiality is often justified as essential to preserving judicial independence, excessive opacity can fuel speculation and deepen public distrust — particularly when complaints number in the thousands. Striking a careful balance between independence and accountability, therefore, remains one of the most critical challenges facing the Indian judiciary today.

Almost Nil Impact of Bharat Bandh Call of Trade Unions

 On February 12, Jantar Mantar in New Delhi served as a focal point for a major gathering as part of a nationwide general strike (Bharat Bandh). Unfortunately, the gathering drew fewer than 500 people. These people were presented as workers, but most were college students. The demonstration was organised by a joint platform of over 10 Central Trade Unions (CTUs), including CITU, AITUC, and INTUC, as well as the Samyukt Kisan Morcha (SKM). This dismal demonstration by the Trade Unions further proves that workers are no longer interested in their tall talk, as the Unions have miserably failed to protect the interests of the working class in India. Things have also changed. There are now a negligible number of workers. Their way of working has changed. They have become habituated to the new facilities. Therefore, they cannot be herded like the workers of the eighties or even the nineties.

The protesters called for the repeal of the four new labour codes, the restoration of MGNREGA (which they claim has been undermined by recent acts), and the withdrawal of the Electricity Amendment Bill and the Draft Seed Bill. These Trade Unionists are themselves unaware of the nuances of the new labour codes. It will, therefore, be advisable for trade unionists to organise a refresher course on the new labour codes, where they can invite young professionals such as Yajat Kumar of the LLR, the grandson of the legendary lawyer, the late HL Kumar.

Impact of the Strike

The overall impact of the Bandh calls across Delhi and the rest of the country was muted. The strike had some impact in states like Kerala, where public transport and banking were somewhat disrupted. In other regions such as West Bengal and Gujarat, life remained largely normal. Public sector banks saw partial disruptions in some places, as major unions like AIBEA joined the strike, affecting cheque clearances and counter services in several branches.

 

Three Generations of Legal Excellence: The Evolution of Labour Law

The legacy of the late Shri H.L. Kumar, the legendary lawyer and founding editor of the prestigious Labour Law Reporter (LLR), continues to reach new heights through the dedicated work of his son and grandson. Gaurav Kumar and Yajat Kumar have taken up the mantle, ensuring that the foundation laid by the patriarch remains a cornerstone of Indian jurisprudence while evolving for a modern era.

The Dual Pillars of the Kumar Legacy

The family's contribution to the legal field now operates through two strategic strengths:

•        Gaurav Kumar: Continues the tradition of rigorous advocacy, focusing on high-stakes litigation and landmark cases in the Supreme Court and High Courts.

•        Yajat Kumar: Has emerged as a "beacon light" for the media and industrial sectors, bridging the gap between complex statutory requirements and practical corporate application.

A Visionary in Legal Consultancy

Recently, the younger Kumar was bestowed with the "Industry Change Makers Award," a rare distinction instituted by India’s leading publications, The Economic Times and The Times of India. This accolade recognises Yajat Kumar as a premier employment law consultant, a title reserved for those who demonstrate exceptional leadership and a transformative impact on their field.

In many circles, it is whispered that Yajat has become the "New H.L. Kumar," not only matching the brilliance of his grandfather but surpassing traditional boundaries to meet the needs of a globalised workforce.

The Recognition: Why he is a "Change Maker"

The award specifically acknowledged Yajat’s role in reshaping the industry through:

•        Strategic Guidance: Navigating intricate employment issues with surgical precision.

•        Balanced Advocacy: Championing robust legal frameworks that harmonise the interests of both employers and employees.

•        Thought Leadership: Driving the editorial vision of LLR to remain the most trusted resource for legal professionals and HR practitioners.

Mastery of the New Frontier

Perhaps Yajat Kumar’s most significant contemporary contribution is his profound clarity regarding the Four New Labour Codes. As these codes come into force, his "incredible and excellent" understanding has made him an indispensable asset to organisations struggling to navigate the transition.

His dedication to legal excellence and innovation ensures that the Kumar name remains synonymous with the highest standards of Indian labour and employment law.

 

Social Media: An Unguided Missile Needing Regulation

 The growth of responsible media is welcome; no other medium disseminates information or commentary with such speed. However, information circulated on these platforms must often be taken with a pinch of salt. Frequently, we are bombarded with fabricated narratives driven by purveyors with their own axes to grind. These individuals often fail to realise the damage they inflict on the credibility of information and the reputation of the media itself.

The root of this anarchy is a lack of binding ethics or values. While self-regulation is often emphasised, it remains, in reality, a charade. Unlike traditional media, social media lacks a "gatekeeper," making it a double-edged weapon. Artificial Intelligence, otherwise immensely useful, has further empowered bad actors to distort facts and manufacture narratives that suit their agendas.

Just today, we witnessed a prime example of this: a deluge of social media posts claiming that the West Bengal Chief Minister—a law graduate from a lesser-known college—argued the "SIR" (Special Intensive Revision) case in the Supreme Court with the prowess of a senior counsel. Viral photographs depicted her in an advocate’s robes, cementing this false narrative.

The truth, however, is legal and distinct. She appeared before the Court only as a party in person, a right permitted under Indian law. As a matter of fact, no Minister or Chief Minister can appear in court as an advocate.

This prohibition is grounded in Rule 49 of the Bar Council of India Rules, which states that an advocate shall not be a full-time salaried employee of any government or corporation. If an advocate takes up such employment, they must suspend their practice. While the Supreme Court has clarified that MPs and MLAs can practice (as they are elected representatives, not employees), the position for Ministers is different. Ministers hold an "Office of Profit" and perform full-time executive duties; thus, they are precluded from practising law to prevent a conflict of interest.

Despite this clear legal position, fake news about her "brilliant advocacy" is being peddled with reckless abandon. The reality of her performance was starkly different. While she certainly addressed the court, her arguments were legally lacking and, at times, frivolous. The language was untenable.

Ultimately, the issue here is not the Chief Minister, but the medium. Her case is merely a symptom of a larger malady. It is imperative that the government, in consultation with responsible media organisations, evolve a robust regulatory mechanism to force social media onto a path of accountability.

Concerns Over the Notification of New UGC Rules

 

The new rules notified by the University Grants Commission (UGC) on 13 January 2026 have generated significant debate and criticism, particularly among some students from the general category. Several groups argued that the framework could unintentionally create perceptions of reverse discrimination. Protests were reported outside the UGC office in Delhi and in other parts of the country, led by organisations such as the “Savarna Sena.” Their principal concern was that the rules did not clearly specify a parallel grievance-reporting mechanism for general category students and might lead to an increase in complaints and administrative complications. The situation, however, stabilised after the Supreme Court granted an interim injunction.

Critics contend that the rules appear to have been notified without sufficiently wide consultation or careful evaluation of their broader social and institutional impact. One major objection is the expansion of coverage to include additional OBC categories without a publicly presented body of evidence demonstrating widespread systemic discrimination in every newly included group. Opponents argue that existing UGC regulations already provide mechanisms to address harassment and discrimination, and that strengthening implementation may have been preferable to expanding the regulatory scope.

Some commentators also question whether the policy debate has relied too heavily on a limited number of high-profile cases, where facts and conclusions remain contested or complex. They suggest that policymaking in this sensitive area should be grounded in comprehensive data, transparent review, and stakeholder consultation across communities.

At the same time, supporters of broader protections argue that discrimination can exist in varied forms and that preventive frameworks are better created early rather than after patterns become entrenched. This difference in perspective highlights the need for more evidence-based dialogue rather than polarised reactions.

The broader philosophical concern remains: if the long-term social objective is to move toward a casteless society, policymakers must carefully assess whether expanding caste-based regulatory structures helps reduce inequity or inadvertently reinforces social divisions. Some earlier thinkers, including Chaudhary Charan Singh, had suggested that incentivising inter-caste marriages could be a more enduring social reform measure. Such proposals deserve renewed discussion alongside regulatory approaches.

Given the sensitivity of the issue, it would be prudent for the government and regulatory bodies to revisit the rules through wider consultation, clearer drafting, and stronger empirical justification, while keeping the focus on fairness, social harmony, and educational development.