Legal Vacuum for Domestic Workers: Supreme Court Orders Expert Committee, Quashes Confinement and Trafficking Case Against Employer

The complainant, a domestic worker from a Scheduled Tribe family, was brought to Delhi in 2009 and placed by a so-called placement agency in several households while it kept her earnings (para 4). In October 2016 she was placed at the Dehradun official residence of Ajay Malik, a DRDO scientist (para 4). When his family left for Kanpur in March 2017, the main entry was locked, a neighbour, Ashok Kumar, held a spare key, and she used a phone left with her to call the police (para 4). The High Court refused to quash or compound the case against Malik but discharged Kumar; both sides appealed (para 3).

Section 482 CrPC powers are wide but must be used sparingly, on settled grounds such as no prima facie offence or vague allegations (paras 8-9). Wrongful confinement was not shown: an alternative exit was available, the phone and a colony pass showed she could communicate and go out, and her affidavits denied confinement (paras 14-17). The FIR mainly targeted those who brought her to Delhi and the agency operator, her Section 164 statement barely implicated Malik and her affidavits cleared him, so no Section 370 offence was made out (paras 18-20). The only agreement between Malik and the agency was her employment, so the conspiracy charge was speculative (paras 23-24). The charges had been mechanically carried into the chargesheet and a trial would be futile (para 26). Section 370 being non-compoundable, the Court agreed compounding was barred but found the point academic (paras 31-32). Ashok Kumar faced no direct allegation and was added as an afterthought, so his discharge stood (paras 35-36). Domestic workers, mostly women from marginalised communities, lack comprehensive legal protection and are excluded from key labour laws (paras 38-39, 41, 50). Rather than frame interim guidelines, the Court left the law to the Legislature (paras 53-54).