On June 11, the Supreme Court labelled homemakers as “nation builders” and set a notional monthly income of ₹30,000 to assess accident compensation for unpaid domestic workers. The court introduced a new type of damages called “Loss of Domestic Care,” deciding that a homemaker’s work should be valued at a minimum of ₹30,000 per month in motor accident cases.

The court noted the irony of calling a homemaker dependent on earning members when, in fact, the household relies heavily on the homemaker.

The applause was immediate and understandable. For decades, feminist political economists, like Silvia Federici and Nancy Fraser, have pointed out that the costs of social reproduction are often shifted onto women’s unpaid work. But this gesture raises a difficult question: does putting a price on care mean truly valuing it?

The scale

The statistics are shocking. India’s Time Use Survey reveals that women spend over seven hours each day on unpaid domestic tasks and engage in nearly 2.6 times the unpaid caregiving work that men do. The court mentioned estimates indicating that women’s unpaid labour contributes between 15-17 per cent of India’s GDP.

A 2024 study in the Economic and Political Weekly, ‘Valuation of Unpaid Household Activities in India’, put that number even higher, estimating it at 26-36 per cent of GDP for 2022-23. Oxfam India’s Time to Care report (January 2020), calculated that Indian women perform 3.26 billion hours of unpaid care work daily, contributing nearly ₹19 trillion to the economy.

The global situation is similarly stark. ILO data from the report ‘Care Work and Care Jobs for the Future of Decent Work’, Geneva: ILO, 2018, from 64 countries show that 16.4 billion hours are spent on unpaid care work every day, equating to two billion people working eight hours without pay. If these services were paid at minimum wage, they would account for 9 per cent of global GDP, or about $11 trillion.

Women carry out 76.2 per cent of all this unpaid care work, averaging 4 hours and 25 minutes per day compared to men’s 1 hour and 23 minutes. By 2024, an estimated 708 million women worldwide were completely out of the labour force due to care responsibilities.

The ₹30,000 figure serves as a baseline for legal compensation, not as a universal wage. However, its economic context sharply highlights its limitations. More than 94 per cent of the 27.69 crore informal sector workers listed on the e-Shram portal earn a monthly income of ₹10,000 or less. Ninety per cent of all Indian workers are in informal arrangements.

In this situation, a ₹30,000 monthly valuation for domestic labour — three times what most informal workers earn— may not correct the imbalance but create a social disconnect. If the financial responsibility lies with the household, the reform turns into a private matter disguised as public justice. In many Indian homes, the husband earns less than the suggested value assigned to the wife’s domestic work. This policy might not redistribute power but instead increase economic tension in households already under pressure.

Conversely, if the state took on the financial burden — though no current proposal suggests this — it would have significant implications. With hundreds of millions of women involved in unpaid domestic work, even a partial payout would require either massive changes in public spending or cuts to other welfare areas.

Global examples

International models offer useful examples but also serve as warnings. Norway and Sweden provide compensation for caregiving through parental leave and childcare support, framing it as family welfare rather than wages for housework.

Germany’s Elterngeld (parental allowance) replaces income for caregivers who leave paid jobs. Finland offers home care allowances for parents looking after young children. Venezuela formally acknowledges housework as economically beneficial under its Bolivarian constitution and extends pension rights to homemakers. Italy and France have long operated cash transfer systems connected to caregiving.

The common thread in these models is clear: states subsidise care through public services rather than paying salaries for housework. A state-backed subsidy is universal in nature. In contrast, a wage for a wife’s domestic work is both gendered and private in its impact, and this difference matters significantly.

The institutionalisation trap

There is another subtle risk associated with monetisation that is often overlooked. When ₹30,000 becomes a formal wage for homemaking, it risks changing expectations into legal agreements. The homemaker is no longer just expected to do domestic work; she is now being paid for it. The mindset shifts quietly from “this is your role” to “this is what you get paid for.”

Financial acknowledgment, which is supposed to free her, might actually reinforce the very obligation it aims to question. This reflects concerns raised by feminist economists regarding “wages for housework” as a policy idea. It may deepen the gendered division of labour instead of breaking it down.

Systemic, cultural changes

The court’s 36-page ruling calls for cultural and systemic changes beyond just a compensation amount. Turning that into policy requires four specific shifts.

First, sharing domestic labour within households must be prioritised. Policies that expand paternity leave, shared caregiving duties, and flexible work options are essential. Without this shift, financial recognition will only strengthen gender roles.

Second, a rights-based approach for homemakers needs to be broadened: independent access to social security, pensions, healthcare, and legal acknowledgment regarding inheritance and property. A homemaker should not have to depend on compensation to claim dignity.

Third, time-use data must be systematically incorporated into national accounting. India’s first Time Use Survey was conducted in 2019; future surveys should occur more frequently and influence policy directly.

Fourth, investing in public infrastructure — like affordable childcare, eldercare services, and community kitchens — can reduce the care burden at its source rather than just compensating afterwards. The ILO has stated that global investment in the care economy must double to avoid a looming crisis.

Recognition is only the beginning

None of this is meant to downplay the court’s contribution. By recognising “Loss of Domestic Care” as a distinct category of damages, the judiciary has compelled the legal system to acknowledge what economics often overlooks. It challenges the idea that the economy operates separately from the household. It also offers immediate relief to families who lose a homemaker, particularly those from poorer backgrounds where the loss is profoundly felt.

However, just recognising care is not the end goal. Assigning a price to care is not the same as truly valuing it. The former risks turning relationships into commodities, while the latter requires restructuring them. If we want social reproduction to be genuinely valued — not just in courtrooms but in budgets, labour policies, and social norms — we must go beyond the simple arithmetic of ₹30,000. It must enter the realm of rights, redistribution, and respect.

Otherwise, we risk doing what policy often does best: solving a deep-seated problem with a numerical gesture and calling it justice. The burden remains exactly where it always has been, just better documented now.

The writer is Assistant Professor, Department of Economics, Dr Bhim Rao Ambedkar College, University of Delhi

Published on June 16, 2026