SHISHU PAL @ SHISH RAM & ORS. vs. SURJEET & ORS
The Supreme Court, in the recent judgment of Shishu Pal v. Surjeet, has reaffirmed the positioning of a woman in the family architecture from a homemaker to a “nation builder”.
Elaborating on the compensation to be paid to a homemaker for a fatal injury caused due to an accident under the Motor Vehicles Act, the Court has laid down certain principles which are a breakthrough in combating gender stereotypes.
The Supreme Court has not only termed women in the family as homemakers instead of housewives, but has also used the Handbook of the Supreme Court of India on Combating Gender Stereotypes, which was an initiative of former Hon’ble Chief Justice of India D. Y. Chandrachud, wherein housewives were termed as homemakers. Thus, the stereotypical and incorrect language of “housewife” has been replaced with the preferred term “homemaker”.
Citing the family structure and the central role of a homemaker, this judgment has further elevated the homemaker to a nation builder.
The Supreme Court highlights the fundamental irony in labelling a homemaker as a mere dependant on earning of other members, in fact earning members are solely dependent on the homemaker. Relying on historical economic theory and international frameworks like the CEDAW General Recommendation No. 17 (1991), the Court notes that domestic work is unjustly excluded from national economic measurements like GDP, despite enabling broader economic productivity.
Further emphasising the economic significance of unpaid domestic labour, the Court observed that homemakers perform indispensable functions that sustain families and enable the productive workforce, yet such contributions remain largely invisible in conventional economic measurements. Referring to empirical data from India’s Time Use Survey, 2019, the Court highlighted the one sided unpaid domestic and caregiving work borne by women and the reason of low female labour force participation. The Court noted that the persistent undervaluation of homemakers’ labour stems from entrenched gender stereotypes rather than any lack of economic worth. It therefore underscored that assigning monetary value to the services rendered by homemakers is not merely a compensatory exercise but a recognition of their substantial economic and social contribution.
The Court further observed that the recognition of a homemaker’s contribution is beyond economic valuation and reflects a shift in societal attitudes. Stressing the importance of language in shaping perception of society, the Court appreciated the use of the term “homemaker” in place of “housewife”. Referring to the Supreme Court’s Handbook, the Court noted that the change in terminology acknowledges the diverse responsibilities performed by women within the household and affirms the dignity, value, and multifaceted nature of their contribution to family life. In the same book, it has also been noted as follows:
StereotypeWomen who do not work outside the home do not contribute to the household or contribute very little in comparison to their husbands. RealityWomen who are homemakers perform unpaid domestic labour (such as cooking, cleaning, washing, household management and accounts) and care work (such as caring for the elderly and for children, helping children with their homework and extracurriculars). The unpaid labour performed by women not only contributes to the household’s quality of life but also results in monetary savings. Women who are homemakers contribute to the household to an equal (or greater) extent.This Judgement expands the contribution of women far beyond biological reproduction, they are also largely responsible for the preparation of human capital, nurturing social values, emotional well-being, shaping the character, skills, and conduct of future generations. Court observes their labour contributes not only to the development of family members but the creation of productive society at large. The services rendered by homemakers provide the social and emotional infrastructure that enables other members of the family to pursue education, employment, and economic advancement. The services rendered by homemakers provide the social and emotional support that enables other members of the family to pursue education, employment, and economic advancement and so many more things which court described by using, a somewhat stereotypical expression, the ‘men of the house’.
Building on this understanding, the Court held that the work performed by homemakers has a direct nexus with national development, laying the foundation stones on which allows the famous business persons, successful politicians, headlining artists, and lawyers to build their big successful careers and therefore they should no longer remain invisible. Rejecting the traditional tendency to view domestic labour through a narrow lens, the Court described homemakers as the unseen force behind the achievements of countless individuals and affirmed that they are, in essence, “nation builders”. While acknowledging that the role of a homemaker may also be performed by men but it is a matter of deep seeded gender stereotypes that when we think of the word ‘homemaker’ the picture that emerges is that of a woman and also acknowledges that many women simultaneously act as both homemakers and breadwinners, the Court emphasised that, for the purposes of the present case, the recognition and valuation of domestic labour was necessary to correct the traditional image of women’s contributions.
The Court relied upon precedents recognising the economic value of domestic labour. Referring to Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, the Court noted the early judicial recognition of the need to award compensation for the loss of a homemaker’s services. Greater emphasis was placed on Arun Kumar Agrawal v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., wherein the Supreme Court held that the contribution of a wife and mother to the family is invaluable and cannot be equated with that of a domestic servant or employee. The Court reiterated that while such services may not generate a regular income, they possess undeniable economic value and must be meaningfully accounted for while determining compensation, also drew support from Kirti v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., which recognised the disproportionate burden of unpaid domestic and caregiving work performed by women and stressed that the labour of homemakers forms the foundation of a functioning household. Relying on these decisions, the Court reaffirmed that domestic work is neither gratuitous nor economically insignificant, and that compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act must reflect the real value of the services rendered by a homemaker rather than treating her contribution as notional or negligible.
While acknowledging the approach adopted in case of Lata Wadhwa, where compensation for deceased homemakers was assessed on the basis of a notional income of ₹3,000 per month, the Court held that a realistic and contemporary approach must be adopted while determining compensation for the death of a homemaker.
The Court further recognised that the loss caused by the death of a homemaker extends well beyond the loss of household services. It encompasses the loss of care, guidance, emotional support, child-rearing, and companionship. Although such contributions cannot be precisely quantified in monetary terms, they carry significant social and economic value. Emphasising that homemakers form the backbone of families and indirectly contribute to the nation’s progress, the Court held that compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act must reflect their broader and often unseen role, rather than being limited to a narrow calculation of domestic work.
The Court highlighted a fundamental limitation in the existing framework for assessing compensation for the death of a homemaker. While fixed amounts for loss of consortium, as prescribed in Pranay Sethi, provide some measure of compensation, they do not adequately reflect the unique and multifaceted contribution of a homemaker. The Court observed that the use of low notional incomes and conservative estimates for future prospects often results in compensation that is disproportionately inadequate when compared to the actual loss suffered by the family. Emphasising that a homemaker’s role combines economic, managerial, emotional, and caregiving functions, the Court held that neither notional income calculations nor standard consortium awards can fully capture the true value of her contribution. Consequently, compensation must be determined with a broader and more realistic appreciation of the indispensable role played by homemakers within the family and society.
Taking a significant step towards addressing the chronic undervaluation of domestic labour, the Court formulated a new compensatory framework for cases involving the death of a homemaker. It directed that a composite amount of ₹30,000 per month, with a 10% increase every three years, be awarded for the loss of household management, maternal care, and spousal or familial support. This amount serves as the minimum notional income for homemakers without monetary earnings and is payable in addition to the proven income of homemakers who are also employed. In justifying this approach. The Court distinguished the concept of loss of consortium from the economic value of domestic labour, the Court observed that consortium primarily compensates the emotional loss suffered by family members, such as the loss of love, affection, companionship, and care. However, it does not adequately account for the economic, managerial, and caregiving functions performed by a homemaker within the household. The introduction of the separate head of “loss of domestic care”, therefore, was intended to bridge this gap and advance the constitutional goal of correcting the systemic undervaluation of women’s unpaid work.
This landmark Judgement is milestone in the jurisprudence wherein, rights of the women in the society has been judicially recognised, and the court has aptly appreciated the women contribution in the family particularly in a patriarchal society. Like the judgement of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020) 9 SCC 1, where in court recognised coparcenary rights of daughters in a Hindu joint family, these judgement are milestone towards the gender neutral society and empowering women, wherein potential of female are not less valuable than those of men.