Karnataka's Domestic Worker Bill: A Major Step Forward, But is it Enough?

[Shubhranshu and Vashmath are students at NALSAR University of Law.]

The Karnataka Domestic Workers (Social Security and Welfare) Bill 2025 (Bill) is a landmark initiative. For years domestic workers have quietly kept Indian households running, yet their labour has almost never been recognized as “real” work deserving of legal protection. These domestic workers, mostly women from marginalized communities, clean, cook, care and enable others to join the formal economy all while remaining outside mainstream labour laws and social security schemes. Estimates of their exact number vary, but the sector’s scale, invisibility and vulnerability are beyond doubt. 

The Bill arrives in wake of  judicial and policy pressure, following the Supreme Court’s January 2025 directions, states were asked to frame protective measures for domestic workers. Karnataka’s draft shifts the conversation from ad hoc welfare to statutory recognition. 

Main Strengths

The Bill propose specific reforms that, if applied correctly could significantly alter character of the sector that has long been informal. At its core is formalization; the Bill makes registration mandatory and broad by requiring domestic workers, employers, placement agencies and digital platforms to register. A single, all encompassing database will ease the compliance monitoring and benefit delivery. Also, putting registration responsibility on employers or service providers in instances where workers are illiterate or are migrant workers addresses a major access barrier. Equally notable is the shift from verbal arrangements to written employment agreements. By requiring a model contract to be used that states obligations, working hours, and remuneration, the Bill gives workers a documentary basis to assert entitlements and lower the scope for arbitrary treatment.  

The creation of a Domestic Workers Social Security and Welfare Board with representation from government, worker organizations and employers or service providers gives an institutional structure for designing schemes, fund administration, monitoring and implementation with stakeholder participation.

The Bill's financial architecture further strengthens its promise. A dedicated Domestic Workers Social Security and Welfare Fund that is to be financed by a welfare fee or an alternative property tax cess together with registration fees and government grants, aims for a sustained financing rather than ad hoc allocations, making pensions, health benefits and training schemes more feasible. The bill also takes care of workforce diversity by explicitly covering migrant workers and the fact that domestic workers can now access state-funded training programmes is also worthy of commendation, as it could help to increase wages and mobility. Finally, the creation of district level grievance redressal committees and statutory powers for the Board to inspect and act offers a long overdue forum for disputes and enforcement. These measures when seen collectively create the legal and institutional framework needed to turn statutory recognition into practical protection, though the real test will be how these systems are put into practice.

Scope for Improvement

While the Bill is a welcome, long overdue recognition of domestic work, several aspects of its framework need strengthening before it can deliver substantial change on ground. To begin with, its coverage is quite restricted. By applying only to metropolitan areas in the initial phase, the Bill risks leaving out a large number of domestic workers who work in smaller towns and semi urban areas. Domestic work is not confined only to elite city homes. Many of the workers travel daily from nearby districts or work across multiple neighborhoods at once. Limiting protection to urban centres may unintentionally create two categories of workers, one protected by law and one still invisible. States like Kerala and Tamil Nadu have already shown that a statewide framework is possible and more equitable.

Another important gap relates to employer side safety. While it is essential to focus on protecting workers from exploitation, the law cannot afford to ignore the concerns of elderly or vulnerable employers who invite strangers into their homes. Trust is a two way street, and without some measure of background verification, many households may hesitate to formally register or hire under the new framework. Other jurisdictions provide workable examples. In Singapore, employers of migrant domestic workers must satisfy eligibility criteria, furnish a refundable security bond and provide compulsory insurance for the worker. In the United Kingdom, caregivers working with seniors require clearance from the Disclosure and Barring Service, which screens criminal records and bars individuals found unfit for caregiving roles. California follows a similar model through its Home Care Services Consumer Protection Act, which requires all registered home care aides to pass a criminal background check conducted by the state and to be listed on a public online registry. This allows families to easily verify the credentials of a domestic worker before hiring. Adopting a comparable screening system in Karnataka would not dilute worker rights. Instead, it would build confidence among employers and make compliance more widespread.

Certain design provisions may also unintentionally produce exclusion. The Bill places the responsibility of registering workers on employers only when the worker is illiterate or a migrant. While this appears to be a welfare minded provision, in practice it could discourage employers and placement agencies from hiring those very groups in order to avoid additional paperwork. Migrant workers might even hide their identity to avoid rejection. The obligation to ensure registration should therefore be uniform regardless of literacy or migration status, to prevent selective hiring.

The financial model in the Bill also needs clearer direction. It currently offers two options : a wage based levy and a property tax cess, without indicating which one will be used. A wage contribution is unlikely to work in practice since most payments are made in cash, many workers have multiple employers, and no wage records are kept. Enforcement would be nearly impossible. The property tax model is far more practical. It can be collected through the existing municipal tax system, spreads the cost across a wider base and avoids employers suppressing wages to offset their contribution. Academic studies and international examples such as Argentina’s presumptive contribution model support this approach. The Bill should therefore clearly adopt the property tax mechanism instead of presenting it as an optional alternative.

Beyond coverage, safety and financing, the Bill leaves major concerns of job security unaddressed: it offers no protection against sudden dismissal, no requirement for a notice period and no obligation to provide compensation in cases of arbitrary termination. In a sector marked by informal employment, the abrupt loss of work can quickly deprive a household of its only income. While the Bill may expect such safeguards to be included in a model employment agreement, they are too essential to be left to contract and should be written directly into the statute. Comparative practice supports this view: South Africa’s domestic worker regulations require minimum notice and compensation for unfair dismissal, while the Article 7 of ILO Domestic Workers Convention (No. 189), though not ratified by India, is widely recognized as a global best practice and it treats protection against termination as central to decent work. Its supplementary Recommendation No. 201 goes further, urging reasonable notice and compensation or severance pay. These examples show that real labour protection should also include guarantee of job security, which the Bill in the current state lacks.

Live-in domestic workers are especially vulnerable because their workplace is also their home, which frequently erases the boundary between working time and rest. Yet, despite defining the category of live in domestic workers, the Bill does not lay down any special safeguards for them. At a minimum it should explicitly guarantee two basic rights, the right to leave the employer’s premises during periods of daily or weekly rest and the right to private communication. These protections are not novel. Article 9 of ILO Domestic Workers Convention, expressly mentions that live in domestic workers should not be obliged to stay within the household at the time of their rest periods. Similar provisions have been included by Spain and the Philippines into their domestic work regulations. In the absence of such statutory safeguards, live-in workers are left almost completely at the mercy of their employer with no substantive control over their time, mobility and autonomy.  

A further critical dimension that needs to be improved relates to the grievance redressal mechanism. The Bill simply provides for the establishment of committees at the district level to settle the disputes while keeping the structure, composition and procedure rules of these bodies completely undefined. Such lacuna does not look promising for a sector with very personal and emotionally complex employment relations. A formal, adversarial complaint process can be intimidating for domestic workers who may fear immediate loss of livelihood, eviction in the case of live in staff or even emotional backlash from children or elders they care for. Several jurisdictions have recognized this and thus prioritize mediation. Hong Kong offers free conciliation services to resolve disputes between domestic workers and employers before legal escalation. In Jordan when authorities receive information about a violation, both worker and employer are summoned first for amicable resolution before any penalty is imposed. Karnataka should consider adopting such a graduated system where minor or first time disputes go through counselling or conciliation and only unresolved or serious cases proceed to formal adjudication. This would preserve working relationships where possible while still allowing for accountability.

Similarly, granting the Welfare Board powers to enter and inspect any premises where there is “reasonable grounds” to suspect sexual exploitation or wrongful confinement is important to prevent abuse but they need clearer boundaries to avoid infringing on constitutional privacy rights. Article 17 of ILO Domestic Workers Convention  permits labour inspectors to access domestic premises, but only under conditions that respect the privacy of the household. Many countries have adopted this balanced approach. In France, inspectors may enter a home only with the consent of the householder. Spain adopts a stronger safeguard by requiring inspectors to take judicial approval before entry, ensuring that oversight is not arbitrary but legally reviewed. Karnataka could adopt a similar model, inspectors should first seek voluntary cooperation, and only if refused should access be allowed through judicial authorization. This framework would protect domestic workers while limiting public backlash and maintaining enforcement measures legitimacy.

Way Ahead

While the Bill creates a strong foundation, its ultimate success depends on implementation. Passing a law is only the starting point, real challenge lies in building awareness among both workers and employers, with many unfamiliar with formal procedures or maybe fearful of new obligations. A sustained multilingual public campaign through unions, local media, self-help groups and resident welfare associations will be necessary to encourage registration and build confidence in the framework. 

Smooth functioning of the framework would also require strengthening the administrative capacity by having sufficient, well trained staff this will ensure that procedures are swift, non-intimidating and accessible even to domestic workers with limited literacy. Technology can come handy for registration and complaint tracking but offline assistance should be sine qua non.

Lastly, this Bill should be viewed as an evolving framework. Data on registration, dispute resolution and utilization of funds should be continually collected and analyzed, with amendments made to the Bill to address deficiencies. Achieving true dignity for domestic workers requires not just law but also sustained enforcement, community participation and a demonstrated commitment.