The Court heard petitions filed by the Internet and Mobile Association of India, Swiggy, Zomato, Zepto, Urban Company and Valmo Transportation challenging the Karnataka Platform-Based Gig Workers (Social Security and Welfare) Act, 2025. The Bench, presided over by Justice M Nagaprasanna, declined to issue a stay on the Act but granted the petitioners interim protection from any coercive action under the statute, provided they deposit the welfare contribution payable for the second quarter of the current year.
Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that the amount sought by the State is not a charitable donation but a statutory obligation enacted by the legislature. He rejected the petitioners’ request to furnish a bank guarantee in lieu of the deposit, stating that the law requires a direct payment. The Court directed the aggregators to deposit the due amount before the Court within three weeks and clarified that, in light of this direction, no coercive steps will be taken against the petitioners until the next date of hearing.
The Bench emphasized that the interim arrangement seeks to balance the interests of the petitioners, the State government and the gig workers who may ultimately be entitled to the welfare benefits. It noted that the protection is conditional and will remain operative only until the matter is further heard.
During the proceedings, Justice M Nagaprasanna questioned the resistance shown by the aggregators towards payment of what he described as a nominal welfare contribution. He remarked, “I am seriously thinking, why are you fighting? Say for fifty paise?” Senior Advocate Dhyan Chinnappa, representing the petitioners, responded by querying the multiplication factor underlying the fifty paise figure.
The petitioners contended that the State legislation introduces a parallel scheme that contradicts the central welfare framework. Senior Advocates CK Nanda Kumar and Dhyan Chinnappa argued that the Karnataka Act is repugnant to the Code on Social Security, 2020 enacted by Parliament and therefore violates Article 254 of the Constitution. They asserted that the central code already comprehensively covers gig workers, platform workers and workers in the unorganised sector, and that virtually every provision of the State Act mirrors the central legislation.
Additional Solicitor General Arvind Kamath supported the petitioners’ position, stating that the State law directly conflicts with the provisions of the central Code on Social Security and should not be implemented while its constitutional validity remains under challenge.
Representing the Karnataka government, Advocate General K Shashi Kiran Shetty opposed the petition. He submitted that there is no inconsistency between the central code and the State legislation. He highlighted that the petitioners had actively participated in consultations preceding the enactment of the law, including discussions on the quantum of the welfare contribution payable for each ride, and therefore cannot now challenge the statutory obligation.
The Court has directed the State government to file its statement of objections by 30 July 2026 and has posted the matter for further hearing on 14 August 2026. The interim order remains in effect subject to compliance with the deposit direction.