On August 20, 2026, a nine-judge Bench of the Supreme Court ruled on a Reference examining the correctness of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs A. Rajappa (1978) [BWSSB], which laid down the test for what counts as an "industry" under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Reference had already been overtaken by events. The Industrial Relations Code (IRC), 2020, came into force on November 21, 2025, repealing the ID Act, 1947, before the Bench's four questions were even framed. The Bench heard the matter regardless, and split sharply on whether to answer it at all.

Why Did an Already-Moot Reference Still Get a Nine-Judge Hearing?

Origin in Jai Bir Singh (2005): A five-judge Bench in State of U.P. vs Jai Bir Singh (2005) 5 SCC 1 doubted the seven-judge BWSSB ruling and referred it for reconsideration.
Escalation to nine judges: A seven-judge Bench, by an order dated January 2, 2017, referred the matter further to a nine-judge Bench.
Four questions framed late: The nine-judge Bench framed four questions on February 16, 2026, on the correctness of the BWSSB test and the effect of a 1982 amendment. The other two asked whether government welfare activities count as "industrial" and how far "sovereign functions" are excluded under Section 2(j).
Overtaken by repeal: By the time these questions were framed, the IRC, 2020, had already repealed the ID Act, 1947, rendering the Reference otiose — the Bench proceeded to hear it anyway.

How Did the Nine Judges Actually Rule?

Two judges — no answer needed: Justices D. Datta and U. Bhuyan held that "the reference requires no answer."
One judge — purely academic: Justice B.V. Nagarathna found the exercise "unnecessary and only academic in nature."
One judge — mooted by repeal: Justice P.S. Narasimha held that an authoritative interpretation was "compelling" when the Reference began, but had "become unnecessary" once the provision was repealed.
Four judges — a hypothetical reformulation: The opinion written by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) for four judges reformulated the BWSSB Triple Test. It called the reformulation merely "hypothetical" and said it will not apply to any pending case.
The reformulated test binds nothing pending: Since the ID Act stands repealed, the CJI's opinion holds that pending disputes continue to be governed by the BWSSB framework, and no future case can arise under the repealed Act either.

Does the Ruling Actually Settle Anything for the New Labour Code?

Scope limited to Section 2(j): The four questions framed on February 16, 2026, concerned only Section 2(j) of the ID Act. The interpretation of Section 2(p) of the IRC, 2020, was never before the Court.
A stated hands-off, followed by a ruling anyway: The CJI's opinion recognises the IRC "is an independent legislative enactment" to be interpreted on its own terms. It still rules that BWSSB's principles shall not be the "sheet anchor" for interpreting the IRC in future.
"Freed of the bondage of ratio": Justice Narasimha's opinion goes further, holding that the interpretation of "industry" under the IRC must be freed of the "bondage of ratio" laid down in BWSSB.
A narrower, text-first path: Justice Nagarathna's opinion affirms BWSSB, but holds that how far its reasoning carries over depends on comparing the two provisions' actual text. That comparison is meaningful only in a real case under the IRC, not in the abstract.

What Anxiety Does the Judgment's Language Reveal?

An old objection resurfacing: The 2005 Reference in Jai Bir Singh had itself criticised BWSSB's "worker-oriented approach" as "unmindful of the interests of the employer or owner of the industry."
Echoed in the CJI's language: The CJI's opinion speaks of the judgment finally lifting a "burden" and letting the law "move forward unencumbered," treating worker protection itself as the obstacle.
Echoed in Justice Narasimha's language: His phrase "bondage of ratio" for the BWSSB precedent casts it as a restraint to escape rather than a protection to preserve.
What exclusion from "industry" actually costs: Being excluded from the definition of "industry" meant exclusion from the ID Act's bare minimum protections and its dispute-resolution forum, which is what made BWSSB's wide test significant in the first place.
The constitutional counterweight: Article 42 requires the state to secure "just and humane conditions of work," while Article 23 prohibits "traffic in human beings" and "begar and other forms of forced labour." Both exist because a workman rarely negotiates as an equal.
Ambedkar's warning on the alternative: The Constitution's basic structure, per the 13-judge Bench in Kesavananda Bharati (1973), includes social, economic and political justice — a mandate the authors read as unmet, since B.R. Ambedkar had warned that liberty from state control was another name for "the dictatorship of the private employer."

Conclusion

The labour codes that replace the ID Act, including the IRC, are built on a premise of exclusion — narrowing who falls within the law's protection rather than widening it. As disputes over the definition of "industry" resume under Section 2(p) of the IRC, they will have to answer to the same constitutional promise of social justice. This judgment's own language treated that promise as a burden to be lifted.

Mains Angle

GS Paper II — Indian Constitution: significant provisions and basic structure; separation of powers and judicial review; government policies and interventions for the welfare of labour as a vulnerable section. Practice question: "The Supreme Court's treatment of the BWSSB precedent in its 2026 ruling has been read as revealing an institutional anxiety about labour protection rather than a genuine interpretive necessity. Critically examine, with reference to India's constitutional vision of social justice and the shift to the labour codes. (250 words)"