“The Supreme Court is not the supreme wisdom” is not merely an emotional reaction; it is a political consciousness that points to the class limitations of power structures. The statement made by the Chief Justice of India during the hearing of the Public Interest Litigation Penn Thozhilalargal Sangam vs Union of India on 29 January 2026 once again underlines the relevance of this assertion.
It would be a serious mistake to view this statement as a personal opinion of an individual. Rather, it reflects the changing class character of the Indian state and the growing dominance of neoliberal political economy within the judiciary. Judicial institutions are never class-neutral; they function within prevailing socio-economic power relations—an axiom that finds clear application in this context.
The claim that trade unions obstruct industrial progress is an old mantra of neoliberal ideology. Since the 1980s, global policies of structural adjustment, privatisation, and labour-market “flexibilisation” have relentlessly propagated this belief. The outcomes of these policies are well known—widening inequality, jobless growth, precarious employment, and the continuous devaluation of labour power.
In the Indian context, these tendencies have assumed a more extreme form. The welfare state envisaged by the Constitution is gradually being replaced by a corporate-oriented state. The four Labour Codes, the so-called Labour Policy, the systematic weakening of MGNREGA, and the privatisation of the public sector are not isolated measures; together they constitute a deliberate strategy to dismantle labour’s collective bargaining power.
Against this backdrop, negative commentary on trade unions from the highest seat of the judiciary is not merely an ideological lapse—it is indicative of class bias. The right to form associations is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution. However, under the neoliberal state, such rights are recognised only under “market-friendly” conditions—so long as they do not challenge the dominant capitalist framework.
Blaming labour struggles for industrial closures is a consciously manufactured misconception. Labour Bureau data clearly shows a steady decline in industrial disputes in India. In other words, industrial closures are increasing even as labour resistance is shrinking. This reality itself directly contradicts neoliberal theory.
To understand the real causes of industrial closures, one must examine the internal contradictions of the capitalist economy—financialisation, market concentration, the decline of small and medium enterprises, falling effective demand, and the dominance of speculative capital. Experiences under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, massive tax concessions granted to large corporations through successive budgets, and poor recovery of public bank loans are living examples of structural privileges extended to capital.
The mocking dismissal of demands for minimum wages for domestic workers also reflects class blindness regarding the social value of labour. Domestic workers—predominantly women, Dalits, and migrant workers—constitute the most invisible labour force in the economy. Denying recognition to their labour as “work” is a shared characteristic of both patriarchal and capitalist systems.
The general strike of 12 February represents a collective resistance against these processes. It is not merely a struggle for labour rights; it is a political intervention against the class restructuring of the state. History makes it abundantly clear that democratic rights, social security, and human dignity have never been granted from above—they have always been won through organised struggle.
The question before us today is simple: will the judiciary stand with the Constitution or with the market? In the conflict between labour and capital, will it pretend neutrality or recognise the reality of class relations? Democracy does not survive merely through elections; it rests on the dignity of labour.
If the government fails to provide a democratic outlet for workers’ discontent, the resulting social imbalance may ultimately lead to political instability—something history has repeatedly demonstrated across the world. Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bangladesh, and Myanmar have witnessed mass uprisings driven by multiple factors, but a common underlying cause has been extreme economic inequality and massive unemployment.
In India, there is a growing gap between the government’s claims based on official statistics and the lived reality on the ground. This is because the credibility of statistics themselves has eroded. If the government, the judiciary, and the bureaucracy begin to speak in one voice, the day may not be far when the Indian people too are pushed onto the same path taken by several other Asian countries.
Devidas Tuljapurkar is the Chairman of Banking Education, Training and Research Academy
