Before her husband wakes up, before her two children begin getting ready for school, and before her mother-in-law starts her day, Nidhi is already at work. Nidhi is a homemaker and higher secondary school teacher who lives with her husband, two children aged 13 and 10, and her mother-in-law.Like millions of women across India, much of that labour has no salary slip, no annual appraisal and no official economic value.The Supreme Court, on June 11, sought to place a benchmark on at least part of that work. In a landmark judgment, it assigned a minimum notional value of Rs 30,000 a month to a homemaker’s labour while calculating accident compensation, reigniting a long-running debate over how India values unpaid domestic work. The SC was hearing an appeal arising from a motor accident compensation case involving a homemaker who died in a road accident on November 25, 2001, in Haryana/Punjab. The ruling emerged from a case involving a homemaker killed in a road accident in Haryana in 2001. More than two decades later, the court not only enhanced compensation for her family but also declared that the contribution of homemakers could no longer be treated as economically invisible.
‘Only Rs 30,000?’
When Nidhi heard about the Supreme Court’s benchmark, her reaction was immediate.“My first reaction to the Supreme Court’s Rs 30,000-a-month valuation of homemakers’ work was: only Rs 30,000? Can the value of a homemaker’s work really be measured in monetary terms? The contribution of a homemaker is invaluable. No government, court or society can truly determine its worth.”“A homemaker works every day, in every circumstance, whether she is healthy or unwell. She cares for her children, supports every member of the family and manages countless responsibilities that often go unnoticed. Much of this work cannot be replaced by anyone else,” she added. To her, assigning a monetary value is important because it acknowledges labour that has long gone unnoticed. Yet she believes the figure itself can never fully capture what homemakers contribute.“While assigning a monetary value to domestic work is an important recognition, I believe a homemaker’s contribution goes far beyond any figure that can be put on paper,” She added.
‘Not just physical labour’
For Akanksha, a Bengaluru-based professional who works from home and has been married for three years, the debate often overlooks what homemakers actually do.She believes people tend to focus only on visible physical labour.“It depends on the number of family members. The monetary benefits alone are not enough because household work is not just physical labour.”According to her, a homemaker functions as a planner, coordinator and manager all at once.“A homemaker keeps the house running smoothly with several underrated chores. It includes making sure things are accessible around the house, clothes are ironed, food is managed, groceries are planned and finances are stabilised according to the family’s needs.”
Echoing similar views, Aarti says, “I am very happy that women who have traditionally received no financial compensation for their work are finally being assigned a value of Rs 30,000 per month. However, in my view, a homemaker’s work cannot truly be priced. She works tirelessly, both mentally and physically, day and night, 24 hours a day. If you look at the full extent of her responsibilities, it is impossible to accurately assess their worth.“Aarti is a working professional in her late fifties who lives with her husband and manages most household responsibilitiesShe points out that homemakers constantly think ahead. They track yearly expenses, plan for festivals, arrange gifts for relatives, manage household inventories and ensure that family obligations are met.“These are things a domestic help cannot do.” The Supreme Court’s observations echo this view.The judges specifically referred to homemakers ensuring that meals are prepared, clothes are ironed, supplies are stocked, children remain on top of their studies and elderly family members receive care.Such labour may not generate income directly, but it creates the stability that enables others to earn income.
Why can’t households just hire people to do homemaker’s job
For Nidhi, the discussion about economic value inevitably returns to everyday realities.“If a household were to hire different people for cooking, cleaning, childcare and household management, the cost would be far higher.”Even then, she notes, those workers would enjoy protections that homemakers do not.“Those workers would have fixed hours, weekly offs and leave. A homemaker, on the other hand, works with a level of dedication and emotional investment that cannot be replicated.”The most striking difference, she says, is the absence of rest.“There are no weekends, summer vacations or guaranteed holidays for homemake Rs Whether it is Sunday or a festival, the responsibilities continue.”The Supreme Court made similar observations, noting that homemakers perform these functions consistently and often without acknowledgment.
How SC arrived at Rs 30,000
One of the most significant aspects of the judgment is how the court reached the Rs 30,000 figure.The judges acknowledged that calculating the value of homemaking is extraordinarily difficult because it combines emotional, managerial, caregiving and economic functions.Instead of treating homemakers as individuals with no income, the court created a new concept called “loss of domestic care.”The benchmark was based on three broad forms of loss:Loss of household managementThe court recognised the homemaker’s role in ensuring the smooth functioning of daily life, including cooking, cleaning, organising and coordinating family responsibilities.Loss of maternal supportThe judges emphasised that mothers are often a child’s first teacher, guide and source of emotional support.They noted that children lose not only affection but also instruction, discipline and guidance when a mother dies.Loss of spousal supportThe court acknowledged that spouses often depend heavily on homemakers for emotional and practical support.The absence of a homemaker can fundamentally disrupt the functioning of a household.Taking these factors together, the bench ruled that Rs 30,000 per month should serve as a basic minimum notional income for homemakers who have no conventional earnings.The figure will increase by 10 per cent every three yeaRsImportantly, the court clarified that if a homemaker also has paid employment, the Rs 30,000 “loss of domestic care” component should be added to her proven income rather than replace it.
‘No court can put a price on respect’
Like many women interviewed for this story, Arti sees a distinction between economic valuation and social recognition.“Respect is not something that can be bought or sold. It is earned. No court can put a price on respect.”Yet she also believes that direct financial recognition could alter the balance of power within households.“If women were to receive a monthly payment for the work they do at home, it would certainly bring changes to their lives. They would be able to spend that money according to their own priorities. It is not that women are not given money for household expenses, but there is something different about having an income of your own and the independence that comes with it.”Her comments touch upon one of the central questions raised by the Supreme Court’s ruling: does recognising domestic labour economically also translate into greater agency for women within families?
What data shows
The court’s conclusions were supported by extensive data.According to India’s 2019 Time Use Survey:
- More than 81 per cent of women perform unpaid domestic services every day.
- Only 26 per cent of men engage in similar work.
- Women spend an average of 299 minutes daily on unpaid domestic work.
- Men spend only 97 minutes.
The survey also found that women shoulder the majority of caregiving responsibilities.Nearly 28 per cent of women participate in unpaid caregiving activities such as caring for children, elderly relatives and sick family members, compared with 14 per cent of men.The Supreme Court noted that women between 15 and 59 years spend over seven hours daily on unpaid domestic work and caregiving.Women perform approximately 2.6 times more unpaid care work than men.These numbers help explain why female labour force participation remains relatively low despite rising levels of education among women. We tried calculating what it would cost to replace a homemaker by hiring separate workers for cooking, cleaning, childcare, elder care and household management, but the exercise quickly ran into a problem – there is no market rate for emotional labour, mental load, or being available 24 hours a day.
Why GDP does not include household work
The economic implications are enormous. Several studies cited by economists estimate that women’s unpaid domestic and caregiving work contributes between 15 and 17 per cent of India’s GDP.An Economic and Political Weekly study estimated the value of unpaid household work at between Rs 71.7 lakh crore and Rs 99.5 lakh crore in 2022-23, depending on the methodology used.The replacement-cost approach asks what it would cost to hire workers for cooking, cleaning, childcare and elder care.The opportunity-cost approach calculates the income women sacrifice by spending time on unpaid work instead of participating in paid employment.Both approaches reveal the same reality: India’s economy relies heavily on labour that never appears in GDP calculations.As the Supreme Court noted, around 16 billion hours of unpaid domestic and care work are performed globally every day.Yet most of this labour remains absent from official economic accounts.
Can homemakers’ work really be measured? What economists say
The debate over valuing domestic work is not new. Economists have wrestled with it for decades, often arriving at different answers depending on how they define “work” itself.According to Surya Bhushan, an alumnus of CESP, JNU, and now an economics professor at DMI, Patna, the issue begins with a basic distinction in economics.“Goods are always counted as work because they involve tangible production. Services, however, are usually counted as work only when they are exchanged in the market for a price.”This explains why a farmer growing vegetables for her family is considered economically productive, while cooking those vegetables for dinner or caring for children at home is generally excluded from conventional economic statistics.Bhushan says it is possible to estimate the economic value of homemakers’ work, though only approximately.“Tangible outputs like hours spent cooking, cleaning and tutoring can be mapped to market equivalents and can be measured with reasonable accuracy. However, emotional and relational care cannot be fully commodified and cannot be captured by a stopwatch.”Economists generally use three methods to estimate the value of domestic labour.The first is the replacement-cost method, which estimates what it would cost to hire workers in the market to perform the same tasks.“It reflects the market value of domestic work. But a homemaker is a multitasking generalist, not four or five separate professionals.”The second is the opportunity-cost method, which estimates the income a homemaker could have earned had she participated in paid employment.The challenge with this approach, Bhushan says, is that it can produce unequal outcomes.“A meal cooked by an MBA graduate would be valued higher than the exact same meal cooked by a school dropout.”The third is the output-based method, which attempts to value the outcomes produced by domestic work, such as meals prepared, children’s educational outcomes and household maintenance. While conceptually appealing, it remains difficult because household outputs are hard to isolate and price.This complexity, he argues, explains why the Supreme Court adopted a standardised benchmark rather than attempting to calculate the precise contribution of each homemaker.“Different purposes require different methods. For motor accident compensation, a standardised replacement-cost benchmark is often the most practical approach.”
Household work – 15 to 16% of GDP
The broader significance of the judgment extends beyond economics.Estimates suggesting unpaid domestic and caregiving work contributes between 15 and 17 per cent of India’s GDP should not be interpreted as output missing from national accounts, Bhushan says. Rather, they demonstrate the enormous scale of labour that households receive without direct payment.“If these unpaid services had to be paid for at market rates, their scale would reach 15 to 17 per cent of existing GDP. That makes them comparable to major sectors of the economy.”
The Supreme Court’s description of homemakers as “nation-builders” is therefore not merely symbolic.“It is a powerful act of recognition. It challenges the long-standing prejudice that domestic work is somehow unproductive.”Yet Bhushan also warns that assigning a wage equivalent to housework comes with risks.“The idea of paying for housework might inadvertently reinforce the stereotype that housework is a woman’s natural duty, rather than encouraging men to share responsibility.”There is also the question of whether money can fully represent work rooted in relationships, care and affection.“Reducing acts of love, care and family maintenance to a wage equivalent may diminish their emotional and social value. Is Rs 30,000 truly reflective of the complexity of the work?”For him, genuine empowerment lies not merely in recognition but in expanding women’s choices through public policy.“As an economist, I believe true empowerment is not just about recognising value. It is about creating alternatives and opportunities through childcare facilities, elder-care support systems and family-friendly public infrastructure that socialise some of this unpaid work.”
Is it the beginning of something tangible?
The Supreme Court’s ruling will primarily influence compensation cases. Yet its significance extends far beyond motor accident tribunals.For the first time, India’s highest court has attempted to place a concrete value on domestic labour while simultaneously acknowledging that its true worth may never be fully measurable.The Rs 30,000 figure is therefore not an answer. It is a starting point.A recognition that unpaid work is still work. A recognition that care is an economic activity.And a recognition that the people who perform it deserve to be seen. As the Supreme Court concluded, homemakers are not dependants. They are “nation builders”.After generations of describing women’s domestic labour as priceless, India has finally begun confronting a difficult truth: priceless cannot continue to mean free.
