Summary: In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jai Bir Singh, a nine-Judge Supreme Court Bench considered whether Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa correctly construed “industry” under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, including the Social Forestry Department issue. The Court considered the maintainability of the reference, reformulation of the Triple Test, the meaning of sovereign functions, and the effect of repeal of the Industrial Disputes Act and commencement of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020. The views on maintainability were divided six to three, while the proposed reformulation received support from only four Judges, with one Judge declining to answer on merits and four Judges finding no need to reconsider Bangalore Water Supply. All nine Judges agreed that Bangalore Water Supply governs pending matters under the repealed Act. The opinions also addressed the relationship between Section 2(j) and Section 2(p) of the Industrial Relations Code. The comment identifies issues concerning repeal dates, framing of questions and the wording of the operative conclusions that should be verified before reliance. Its central conclusion is that Bangalore Water Supply continues to govern live disputes under the repealed Act.

Civil Appeal No. 897 of 2002, with some forty-five connected matters, was placed before nine Judges to decide whether Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa, (1978) 2 SCC 213, correctly construed the expression “industry” in Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The occasion was narrow — whether the Social Forestry Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh is an “industry.” The stakes were not.

A Declaration That Disclaims Itself

An analytical comment on State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jai Bir Singh, 2026 INSC 897 (nine Judges, decided 20 August 2026)