Supreme Court seeks Centre's reply on construction workers' safety rules

The Supreme Court on Monday sought the Centre's response on a petition alleging the absence of a safety code for construction workers under the new Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions (Central) Rules, 2026, after a wall collapse in Gurugram killed seven workers and injured four. A bench headed by CJI Surya Kant said labour safety compliance must be a condition in builders' licences. Advocate Prashant Bhushan appeared for the petitioner.

Written by AI from Hindustan Times — India · not yet reviewed by an editor · Published 22 Sept 2026, 8:38 am IST

Source

Hindustan Times — India · read the original report ↗

#supreme court#construction workers#safety code#gurugram#labour law

Desk check · compared with the source

What the desk checked (5)

Supreme Court bench headed by CJI Surya Kant sought the Centre's response on a petition alleging absence of a construction safety code under the 2026 Rules. — Attributed to court proceedings reported in the source; bench composition named as Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana.
A retaining wall collapsed in March during excavation at Signature Global City of Colours project, Sidhrawali, Gurugram, killing seven workers and injuring four. — Attributed to submissions by advocate Prashant Bhushan for the petitioner; figures appear in source.
The Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions (Central) Rules, 2026 came into operation on May 7 and cover cleanliness, ventilation and dust but not worker safety. — Claim made by the petitioner; presented in source as petitioner's assertion, not independently confirmed.
Section 18(1) of the new code requires the Centre to notify occupational safety standards for construction work, which remains unfulfilled. — Attributed to the petition; figure and section reference appear in source.
Petition seeks inquiry into the collapse, compensation to victims' families and a national record of construction fatalities. — Attributed to the petition as described in the source.

Written by AI from Hindustan Times — India · not yet reviewed by an editor · How we use AI · Report an error

Analysts’ view opinion

AI Political Analyst

The Gurugram wall collapse risks becoming less an accident story and more a political argument about India's rewritten labour laws. By issuing notice, the Supreme Court has formally put on the table the question of whether the new codes and 2026 rules actually deliver the safety protections the older law promised — and that raises the pressure on the Centre to show speed on implementation. The suggestion that compliance with a labour safety code be built into the builder's licence itself is uncomfortable for both the construction lobby and state planning departments. With the Centre and Haryana both required to respond, a blame-allocation contest looks hard to avoid.

With the 1996 Act replaced by the 2020 Code and the 2026 Rules, the case hands fresh ammunition to the long-running 'reform versus worker protection' debate.
Because the Centre, the Haryana government, state departments and police are all parties, there is an obvious incentive for each to shift responsibility to the other.
The court's demand for a chart comparing gaps between the new rules and the earlier code means any shortfall gets documented — useful material for opposition parties and trade unions.
Licence conditions and a builder-funded welfare corpus would add cost to real estate, so pushback from the sector is a realistic expectation.
The absence of a clear forum for compensation claims shifts worker welfare from campaign rhetoric to a test of administrative accountability.

What to watch — Watch whether the Centre notifies construction safety standards under Section 18(1) or defends the existing rules in court, and how far unions and opposition parties choose to politicise the gap.

The court has ruled on nothing and fixed no liability; the claim that the new rules leave safety gaps remains the petitioner's assertion, with the Centre's response still awaited.

Deep dive

Research brief · 8 facts · 5 dates · exam-ready

The brief

Context

India's construction sector, one of the largest employers of informal labour, was governed for safety purposes by the Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996, which has now been replaced by the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 and the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions (Central) Rules, 2026 that came into operation on May 7. A petition by the National Campaign Committee for Central Legislation on Construction Labour alleges that the new Rules omit a construction safety code, leaving workers without safety guarantees, compensation remedies or a claims forum. The trigger was the collapse of a retaining wall during excavation for a sewage treatment plant at the Signature Global City of Colours project at Sidhrawali, Gurugram in March, in which seven workers died and four were injured. The Supreme Court has now issued notice to the Centre, Haryana government, state departments and police authorities.

Key facts

A wall collapse in Gurugram killed seven construction workers and injured four; the Supreme Court sought the Centre's response on a petition on construction worker safety.
The collapse was of a retaining wall during excavation for a sewage treatment plant at the Signature Global City of Colours project, Sidhrawali, Gurugram, in March.
The Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions (Central) Rules, 2026 came into operation on May 7.
The petitioner argues the 2026 Rules cover cleanliness, ventilation and dust but not labourer safety.
Section 18(1) of the new Code requires the Central Government to notify occupational safety and health standards for building and other construction work; the petition says this remains unfulfilled.
The bench comprising CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana said safety compliance must be a condition in the builder's licence itself.
The court asked the petitioner for a chart listing gaps under the new Rules compared with the prior code.
The petition seeks an inquiry into the March collapse, compensation and statutory dues, and a national record of construction fatalities and their causes.

Timeline

1996Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act enacted, governing construction safety.
2020Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code replaces the 1996 Act.
MarchRetaining wall collapses during excavation for a sewage treatment plant at Signature Global City of Colours, Sidhrawali, Gurugram; seven workers killed, four injured.
May 7Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions (Central) Rules, 2026 come into operation.
Monday (date not stated in the source)Supreme Court bench headed by CJI Surya Kant issues notice, seeking responses from the Centre, Haryana government, state departments and police.

Who has a stake

Construction workers and their dependants — Absence of safety standards and of a specified forum or tribunal for compensation claims, per the petition.
Union Government — Obliged under Section 18(1) of the 2020 Code to notify safety standards for building and construction work; must now reply to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court bench (CJI Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana) — Examining legislative gaps; suggested licence conditions, a builders' welfare corpus and notified labour or industrial courts.
National Campaign Committee for Central Legislation on Construction Labour — Petitioner seeking a safety code, inquiry into the Gurugram collapse, compensation and a national fatality record.
Builders and developers — May face safety compliance as a licence condition and a possible obligation to create a welfare corpus for workers.
Haryana government, state departments and police — Made parties to the petition; required to file responses to the court's order.
Director of Town and Country Planning — Identified by the court as the licensing authority for builders under a separate statute, a possible enforcement route.

Why it matters

Construction is among India's most hazardous occupations, and the petition argues that the shift from the 1996 Act to the 2020 Code and the 2026 Rules has left a vacuum where binding excavation, scaffolding and demolition safety norms once existed. Without notified standards and a designated claims forum, deaths like the seven in Gurugram may go without accountability or compensation. The court's suggestion of tying safety compliance to builders' licences points to enforcement through existing regulatory chokepoints rather than fresh litigation.

UPSC angle

Prelims pointers

Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions (Central) Rules, 2026 came into operation on May 7.
Section 18(1) of the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 mandates the Centre to notify safety standards for building and other construction work.
The 2020 Code replaced the Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996.
The earlier Code made Indian Standards, the National Building Code and the ILO code of practice on construction safety binding on employers.
Petitioner: National Campaign Committee for Central Legislation on Construction Labour; counsel: Advocate Prashant Bhushan.
Bench: CJI Surya Kant with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana; licences to builders are issued by the Director of Town and Country Planning.

Mains framing

The Gurugram retaining wall collapse that killed seven workers has exposed what the petitioner calls a legislative gap created by the transition from the Building and Other Construction Workers Act, 1996 to the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 and the Central Rules, 2026: while the earlier framework contained specific provisions on excavation and tunnelling and made Indian Standards, the National Building Code and the ILO code of practice binding on employers, the new Rules are said to address only cleanliness, ventilation and dust. Section 18(1) of the Code obliges the Centre to notify occupational safety and health standards for construction work, but the petition claims this remains unfulfilled, leaving no rules on excavation, shoring, sloping, placement of excavated material, inspection before entry, scaffolding, formwork or demolition, and no forum or tribunal for compensation claims by workers or dependants. The Supreme Court's own suggestions indicate the way forward: embedding labour safety code compliance as a condition in the builder's licence issued under a separate statute, requiring builders to create a welfare corpus, and notifying labour or industrial courts to hear compensation claims. The petition additionally seeks an inquiry, payment of statutory dues and a national record of construction fatalities and their causes, which would strengthen data-driven enforcement.

Key terms

Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020: Central law that replaced the 1996 construction workers Act; Section 18(1) requires the Centre to notify safety standards for construction work.
OSH (Central) Rules, 2026: Rules framed under the 2020 Code, operative from May 7, which the petition says cover cleanliness, ventilation and dust but not worker safety.
BOCW Act, 1996: Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, which had specific safety provisions for excavation and tunnelling.
Retaining wall: A structure holding back earth; one collapsed during excavation for a sewage treatment plant at Sidhrawali, Gurugram, killing seven workers.
Director of Town and Country Planning: Authority that issues licences to builders under a separate statute; the court saw it as a route to enforce safety obligations.
ILO code of practice on construction safety: International Labour Organisation safety guidance that the earlier Code made binding on employers, along with Indian Standards and the National Building Code.

Practice questions

Critically examine whether the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 and its 2026 Rules adequately protect construction workers compared to the BOCW Act, 1996.
The Supreme Court suggested making labour safety compliance a condition in builders' licences. Discuss the merits and limits of using licensing as a labour-safety enforcement tool.
Discuss the need for a designated forum for compensation claims and a national record of construction fatalities in improving occupational safety governance in India.

Grounded only in the source report — figures and dates are the source's, not inferred.

Next storyIIT Bombay students clarify stand after Sahil Wakode's death →

← All stories