Uber moves Karnataka High Court challenging Gig Workers Act

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday sought the response of the Union government, the State government and the Karnataka Platform-Based Gig Workers Welfare Board to a petition filed by ride-hailing aggregator Uber challenging the validity of the Karnataka Platform-Based Gig Workers (Social Security and Welfare) Act, 2025.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj issued notice in the matter, returnable by August 24, 2026, and ordered that the matter be tagged with other petitions challenging the same law in which notice has already been issued.

The Court also observed that a coordinate Bench had, on July 3, 2026, passed an interim order in the connected matters.

By the July 3 order, a Bench comprising Justice M Nagaprasanna granted petitioners Zomato, Swiggy and four others (aggregators who engage gig workers) interim protection from any coercive action under the 2025 Act, subject to them depositing a welfare contribution due under the new law.

Yesterday, Justice Govindraj held that the benefit of the July 3 interim order would equally apply to Uber.

Appearing for Uber, advocate Mohammed Shameer, informed the Court that the deadline set in the July 3 order for depositing the welfare amount expired on July 23.

Since Uber's petition had been filed subsequently, Shameer requested that the company be granted time until August 21, 2026, to make the deposit.

Accepting the request in part, the Bench extended the time for compliance till three weeks from July 28.

"The time period is extended to the petitioner. However, the time period for compliance of three weeks would have to be calculated from today," the Court's order said.

Uber has urged the Court to strike down the Karnataka Platform Based Gig Workers (Social Security and Welfare) Act, 2025, the Karnataka Platform Based Gig Workers (Social Security and Welfare) Rules, 2025, the notification constituting the Karnataka Gig Workers Welfare Board, the Government Order issued under the Act and all consequential notices issued against it.

Uber has contended that the State legislation creates a parallel social security regime that directly conflicts with the Code on Social Security, 2020, enacted by Parliament.

Uber argues that that the Karnataka law substantially duplicates the welfare mechanisms under the Central Code while imposing additional financial obligations on platform aggregators.

The petition adds that this results in a legislative repugnancy and violates Article 254 of the Constitution, which governs inconsistencies between Central and State laws.

Uber has also challenged the validity of the Gig Workers Rules, contending that they travel beyond the parent Act. According to the company, while the Act treats the State welfare fee as a substitute for contributions contemplated under the Central Code, the Rules proceed on the footing that liabilities under both regimes may coexist and be adjusted subsequently, thereby creating uncertainty for aggregators.

Apart from the issue of repugnancy, the petition contends that several provisions of the Act and the Rules are vague, overbroad and impose compliance obligations without adequate statutory guidance.

A team from Trilegal comprising partners Anuj Berry, Anusha Ramesh and Mohd Shameer, along with Parimal Kashyap, Utkarsh Srivastava, Nia Susan Chaly represented Uber.