Swiggy takes Gig Workers Act 2025 fight to Karnataka HC

What the case is about

Several platform aggregators, along with the Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI), have moved the Karnataka High Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Platform-Based Gig Workers (Social Security and Welfare) Act, 2025, and the rules framed under it. The development was reported by Bar and Bench. The petition also targets a series of notices issued by the Chief Executive Officer under the Act that require platforms to meet fresh compliance obligations. The matter is yet to be listed before the Karnataka High Court.

Who has filed the petition

According to the report, the petitioners include IAMAI, Eternal Ltd, Zepto, Swiggy, Urban Company, and Valmo Transportation. The group has filed a writ petition seeking judicial scrutiny of the state law and the regulatory steps taken under it. They have also asked the court to set aside consequential notices issued pursuant to the law’s operational framework. The list indicates that the challenge spans food delivery, quick commerce, and broader on-demand services.

What the notices require platforms to do

The notices cited in the petition require platform companies to comply with statutory obligations under the Karnataka law. These include establishing Internal Dispute Resolution Committees (IDRCs), paying welfare fees, and submitting prescribed information to the authorities. The Hindi-language portion of the provided text also references specific timelines, including requirements from May 2026 related to forming internal dispute committees. It further references June 2026 notifications indicating that welfare fees would need to be paid by early July. The petitioners are seeking to stop or quash these directions through the court process.

The core legal argument: conflict with the central law

The petitioners contend that Parliament enacted the Code on Social Security, 2020 (COSS) to consolidate labour welfare laws and create a uniform national framework for social security, including for gig and platform workers. As reported, they argue that the Code already addresses key aspects such as identification of gig workers, formulation of welfare schemes, aggregator contributions, and the overall regulatory framework. On that basis, the petition asserts that the Karnataka Act and the rules framed under it are inconsistent with the central legislation. They claim this inconsistency makes the state framework “repugnant” to the central law.

Constitutional grounds cited by the petitioners

Beyond the centre-state inconsistency argument, the petition also challenges the Karnataka law on constitutional grounds. As reported by Bar and Bench, the petitioners contend that the Act and Rules are arbitrary and violate Article 14 of the Constitution. The filing also alleges infringement of other fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution. The petition seeks a declaration that the Act, its Rules, the notification constituting the Welfare Board, and a Government Order dated February 12, 2026, are unconstitutional.

What reliefs the platforms are seeking

The petitioners have asked the Karnataka High Court to quash “all consequential notices” issued under the challenged legal framework. This includes directions related to constituting Internal Dispute Resolution Committees (IDRCs), show-cause notices, and demands for payment of welfare fees. They have also sought to set aside the notices issued by the Chief Executive Officer under the Act. The prayer for relief, as described in the text, is designed to pause or undo compliance steps triggered by the Act’s implementation while the constitutional challenge is adjudicated.

Why this matters for gig worker regulation nationally

The case is being watched because it raises a broader question about how gig worker welfare frameworks should be structured across India. The summary in the provided text notes that the outcome “could set significant precedents for gig worker regulations in India.” The platforms’ challenge is anchored in the argument that a single national framework already exists through the Code on Social Security, 2020. Karnataka’s law, in contrast, is being contested as an additional state-level regime with its own obligations and enforcement actions.

Related Supreme Court observations on gig worker rights

Separately, the provided text notes that the Supreme Court has told the Union government that labour and social security rights for gig workers and app-based service providers cannot be denied under the guise of a “policy decision” if a statutory regime provides such protections. That observation arose while hearing a petition moved by the Indian Federation of Application-Based Transport Workers (IFAT). The IFAT petition argues that gig workers should be recognised as “unorganised workers” and extended statutory benefits such as health insurance and pensions. It names platform companies such as Zomato, Swiggy, Uber, and Ola, and alleges that misclassification as independent contractors deprives gig workers of social security benefits and violates rights under Articles 14 and 21.

Key facts at a glance

Market impact and what investors will track

For investors following India’s listed and large unlisted platform businesses, the dispute highlights regulatory compliance as a key operational variable in the gig economy. The notices described in the petition refer to recurring obligations such as welfare fees and governance structures like internal dispute committees. The legal challenge also puts focus on the interaction between the Code on Social Security, 2020 and state-level gig worker welfare legislation. Separately, the Supreme Court’s remarks in the IFAT-related matter signal that the judiciary is actively examining how statutory social security protections apply to app-based work.

Conclusion

Swiggy, Zepto and other platform firms, alongside IAMAI, have asked the Karnataka High Court to strike down or suspend the Karnataka gig workers welfare law and related compliance notices, arguing conflict with the Code on Social Security, 2020 and constitutional infirmities. The matter is yet to be listed, and the petition seeks to quash notices tied to IDRC formation and welfare fee demands, among other steps. The next key trigger for the market will be the court’s listing, initial hearing, and any interim relief on enforcement of the notices referenced in the filings.