SC Recognises Economic Value of Unpaid Domestic Labour
Why in News
- The Supreme Court in Shishupal @ Shish Ram vs Surjeet by a Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N.K. Singh gave a landmark ruling.
- The Court enhanced compensation for homemaker Reshma’s road accident death from Rs 8.43 lakh to Rs 62.78 lakh.
- It created a new compensation head called “Loss of Domestic Care” assigning homemakers a minimum notional monthly income of Rs 30,000.
Background of the Case
- Reshma died in a road accident in Punjab in 2001.
- The MACT awarded Rs 2.42 lakh in 2003 and the Punjab and Haryana High Court enhanced it to Rs 8.43 lakh in 2024.
- The family approached the Supreme Court and received a substantially enhanced compensation of Rs 62.78 lakh.
Key Directions of the Supreme Court
- New Compensation Head: “Loss of Domestic Care” introduced as a distinct category in motor accident compensation claims.
- Notional Income: Homemakers assigned a minimum notional monthly income of Rs 30,000 as a benchmark.
- Periodic Revision: The notional amount will be revised upward by 10% cumulatively every three years.
- Additive Rule: Where a homemaker is also employed, “Loss of Domestic Care” compensation is awarded in addition to proven income.
- Judicial Delays: Average pendency before MACTs is about 6 years and before High Courts about 8 years — the Court directed expedited disposal.
- High Courts must ensure compensation appeals do not remain pending beyond four years and must assess need for additional benches.
Significance: Gender Justice and Care Economy
- Homemakers as Nation Builders: The Court described homemakers as builders of human capital and foundational contributors to society.
- Invisible Labour Made Visible: Cooking, cleaning, childcare and elderly care have remained invisible in economic calculations despite their substantial value.
- Previous Judgements: In Lata Wadhwa (2001), the Court valued homemaker services at Rs 3,000. In Kirti vs Oriental Insurance (2021), it held that economic value of homemakers cannot be discounted simply because work is unpaid.
- GDP Blindspot: The judgment advances the long-standing debate on incorporating unpaid care work beyond conventional GDP measures.
- Gender Sensitive Jurisprudence: The ruling advances gender justice, recognition of the care economy and a more realistic assessment of economic dependency.
Challenges and Unanswered Questions
- No Empirical Basis: The Court did not provide a precise mathematical or empirical basis for fixing the Rs 30,000 benchmark.
- Regional Variation: Future debates may arise regarding regional cost-of-living differences affecting the notional income standard.
- Insurance Impact: A large increase in average claim size may force motor insurance companies to reassess risk models significantly.
- Scope Limitation: The judgment applies only to MACT compensation cases and does not create a salary, pension or employment relationship.
- Male Homemakers: Future litigation may test whether male homemakers can claim equivalent treatment under this framework.
Way Forward
- Develop a standardised empirical methodology for valuing unpaid domestic work beyond notional benchmarks.
- Homemakers seeking maintenance under the Hindu Marriage Act can now invoke this reasoning to claim economic value.
- Rural women who assist in sowing, harvesting and cattle-tending can invoke the Court’s reasoning for higher labour valuation.
- India must consider incorporating unpaid care work into national income accounting aligned with global best practices.
- The additive rule may encourage similar reasoning in work-from-home employment disputes involving domestic responsibilities.
Source: The Hindu
