Justice Suraj Govindaraj Steps Down from High-Profile Gig Workers Case
In a recent development, Justice Suraj Govindaraj of the Karnataka High Court has recused himself from presiding over petitions challenging the Karnataka Platform-Based Gig Workers (Social Security and Welfare) Act, 2025. The case, titled Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI) & others v. State of Karnataka, involves significant legal scrutiny of the state’s legislative measures concerning gig workers.
The reason for Justice Govindaraj’s recusal stems from a potential conflict of interest. The petitions in question were filed with the assistance of the law firm IndusLaw. During the proceedings, Justice Govindaraj remarked, “IndusLaw? Not before us,” signaling his decision to step down due to the possible conflict.
The decision to recuse was not met with opposition from the petitioners. Senior Advocate Dhyan Chinnappa, representing the petitioners, expressed confidence in Justice Govindaraj’s impartiality, stating, “Everybody is here for your Lordship.” However, Justice Govindaraj maintained his stance, underscoring the importance of avoiding any semblance of bias.
The case will now be reassigned to another judge within the Karnataka High Court. The petitions have been brought forward by IAMAI and major platform aggregators such as Eternal Ltd (including Zomato and Blinkit), Zepto, Swiggy, Urban Company, and Valmo Transportation. These entities are contesting the constitutional validity of the 2025 Act and its associated rules.
Legal Challenges and Allegations
The petitioners are seeking to quash various notices that mandate compliance with statutory obligations, including the formation of Internal Dispute Resolution Committees (IDRCs). They are also challenging show-cause notices that accuse them of non-compliance in implementing the Act’s provisions.
More Read
Key allegations include the failure to establish IDRCs, a lack of response to communications regarding software integration for welfare fee payments, and the non-submission of required information to authorities. Furthermore, the petitioners are disputing welfare fee demands made on June 22, which require aggregators to make payments under Section 20 of the 2025 Act by July 5.
Central vs. State Legislation
At the heart of the legal challenge is the argument that the Karnataka Act conflicts with the existing Central legislation, namely the Code on Social Security, 2020. This national framework is designed to provide social security provisions for gig and platform workers, covering aspects such as worker identification, welfare schemes, and aggregator contributions.
The petitioners contend that the Karnataka legislation creates redundant structures and imposes additional financial burdens on aggregators. They argue that this state law is in direct conflict with the Central law, invoking the doctrine of repugnancy as outlined in Article 254 of the Indian Constitution.
