Major digital platforms, including Swiggy, Zomato, Uber and other aggregators, have approached the Karnataka High Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Platform Based Gig Workers (Social Security and Welfare) Act, 2025, contending that the State legislation is repugnant to the Code on Social Security, 2020 (CoSS)enacted by Parliament and is therefore unconstitutional under Article 254 of the Constitution.

The petition also assails the Karnataka Platform Based Gig Workers (Social Security and Welfare) Rules, 2025, the notification constituting the Karnataka Platform Based Gig Workers Welfare Board, and a Government Order issued under the Act. Additionally, the petitioners have challenged notices issued by the Welfare Board directing them to constitute Internal Dispute Resolution Committees (IDRCs), show-cause notices alleging non-compliance with the Act, and welfare fee notices requiring payment of the prescribed welfare fee by 5 July 2026.

According to the petition, Parliament, through the Code on Social Security, 2020, has already established a comprehensive and uniform national framework governing the social security of gig workers, including their identification, welfare schemes, contributions by aggregators and the regulatory mechanism for implementation. The petitioners argue that despite this comprehensive central legislation, Karnataka has enacted a parallel law regulating the very same subject matter.

Also Read Honeymoon Murder Case: Meghalaya High Court Upholds Bail Granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi

The plea contends that the State legislation creates substantially similar welfare structures, imposes additional financial liabilities on aggregators, and establishes parallel regulatory mechanisms that are inconsistent with and derogate from the framework envisaged under the Central Code. This, it is argued, results in a direct conflict and operational inconsistency between the two enactments, rendering the State law void on the ground of repugnancy under Article 254.

Apart from the issue of repugnancy, the petitioners have also alleged that the Act and the Rules are arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and other fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. They have accordingly sought the quashing of the Act, the Rules, the notification constituting the Welfare Board, the Government Order, and all consequential notices issued under the legislation, including the IDRC, show-cause and welfare fee notices.