The Court has issued notice in the matter and extended the benefit of an earlier interim order passed in connected petitions to Uber.
Uber has moved the Karnataka High Court challenging the validity of the Karnataka Platform-Based Gig Workers (Social Security and Welfare) Act, 2025, arguing that the state law conflicts with India's Code on Social Security, 2020.
On Tuesday, Justice Suraj Govindaraj issued notice to the Union government, the Karnataka government and the Karnataka Platform-Based Gig Workers Welfare Board, directing them to respond by August 24, 2026. The Court also tagged Uber's petition with other pending cases challenging the same law.
The High Court further ruled that Uber would receive the benefit of an interim order issued on July 3 in related petitions. Under that order, food delivery platforms Zomato, Swiggy and four other aggregators were granted protection from any coercive action under the 2025 Act, provided they deposited the welfare contribution required by the new law.
Uber told the Court that it had filed its petition after the original deadline for making the payment had expired and requested more time to comply. The Bench partly accepted the request, extending the deadline to three weeks from July 28.
In its petition, Uber seeks to strike down the 2025 Act, the corresponding Rules, the notification establishing the Karnataka Platform-Based Gig Workers Welfare Board, the Government Order issued under the Act and all consequential notices issued against the company.
Uber argues that the state legislation creates a parallel social security regime that directly conflicts with the federal Code on Social Security, 2020. According to the company, the Karnataka law largely duplicates the welfare framework established by the central legislation while imposing additional financial obligations on platform aggregators, resulting in a legislative conflict under Article 254 of the Constitution.
The company also challenges the validity of theGig Workers Rules, arguing that they go beyond the parent Act and create legal uncertainty by allowing obligations under both the state and federal regimes to coexist. In addition, Uber contends that several provisions of the Act and the Rules are vague, overly broad and impose compliance obligations without sufficient statutory guidance.
Source: Bar & Bench
