Subscribe
Ride-hailing platform Uber has challenged the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Platform-Based Gig Workers (Social Security and Welfare) Act, 2025, before the Karnataka High Court, arguing that the law conflicts with the Union government’s Code on Social Security, 2020.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj on Tuesday, July 28, issued notices to the Union government, the Karnataka government, and the Karnataka Platform-Based Gig Workers Welfare Board, and directed that Uber’s petition be heard along with similar challenges already pending before the court.
According to Bar and Bench, the court also extended to Uber the benefit of an interim order passed on July 3 in connected petitions filed by platforms, including Swiggy and Zomato. Under that order, aggregators are protected from coercive action under the Act, subject to depositing the welfare contribution mandated by the law.
Uber told the court that it had filed its petition after the July 23 deadline set for depositing the welfare amount. Accepting the company’s request, the court granted Uber three weeks from July 28 to comply with the payment requirement.
In its petition, Uber has sought to quash the Gig Workers Act, the accompanying Rules, the notification constituting the Karnataka Gig Workers Welfare Board, the government order issued under the Act, and all consequential notices issued against the company.
The company argues that the Karnataka law creates a parallel social security framework that duplicates and conflicts with the Code on Social Security, 2020, while imposing additional financial obligations on platform aggregators. It contends that this amounts to legislative repugnancy under Article 254 of the Constitution, which governs inconsistencies between Union and state laws.
Uber has also challenged the validity of the Rules, alleging that they go beyond the parent legislation. According to the petition, while the Act treats the state welfare contribution as a substitute for contributions under the central law, the Rules suggest that liabilities under both regimes may coexist, creating uncertainty for aggregators.
The petition further contends that several provisions of the Act and Rules are vague, overbroad and impose compliance obligations without sufficient statutory guidance.
