The Supreme Court on Tuesday said the value of a woman’s work at home was no less than that of her office-going husband and enhanced the compensation to relatives of a couple who died when a car hit their scooter in April 2014 in Delhi.
The ruling comes days after Makkal Needhi Maiam (MNM) chief Kamal Haasan had promised to pay women homemakers a monthly wage for their domestic work in his seven-point agenda for the forthcoming 2021 Tamil Nadu Assembly polls. The veteran actor-turned-politician’s promise won praise from senior Congress leader and Member of Parliament Shashi Tharoor on Tuesday.
Tharoor tweeted: “I welcome Kamal Haasan’s idea of recognising housework as a salaried profession with the state government paying a monthly wage to homemakers. This will recognise and monetise the services of women homemakers in society, enhance their power and autonomy and create near-universal basic income.”
However, actor Kangana Ranaut on Tuesday opposed the proposal given by actor-politician Kamal Haasan to recognise household work as a salaried profession. The actor said this will be like reducing a homeowner to an employee and trying to pay God for his creation.
“Don’t put a price tag on sex we have with our love, don’t pay us for mothering our own, we don’t need salary for being the Queens of our own little kingdom our home, stop seeing everything as a business. Surrender to your woman she needs all of you not just your love/respect/salary,” Kangana tweeted from her verified account on Tuesday.
A bench of justices N.V. Ramana and Surya Kant enhanced the compensation by Rs 11.20 lakh to Rs 33.20 lakh to be paid to the father of the deceased man by the insurance company with 9% annual interest from May 2014.
Justice Ramana expanded the idea first espoused by the SC in Lata Wadhwa case in 2001 when it had dealt with the issue of compensation for victims of a fire during a function and had ruled that it should be granted to housewives on the basis of services rendered by them in the house. He said as per the 2011 Census, nearly 159.85 million women mentioned “household work” as their main occupation, as against only 5.79 million men.
He also referred to a recent report of the National Statistical Office titled ‘Time Use in India-2019’ which suggested that, on an average, women spend nearly 299 minutes a day on unpaid domestic services for household members versus 97 minutes by men.
Like, in a day, women spend 134 minutes on unpaid caregiving services for household members as compared to 76 minutes by men. The total time spent on these activities per day makes the picture in India even clearer – women on an average spend 16.9% and 2.6% of their day on unpaid domestic services and unpaid caregiving services for household members respectively, while men spend 1.7% and 0.8 &, Justice Ramana said.
“The sheer amount of time and effort that is dedicated to household work by individuals, who are more likely to be women than men, is not surprising when one considers the plethora of activities a homemaker undertakes. A homemaker often prepares food for the entire family, manages the procurement of groceries and other household shopping needs, cleans and manages the house and its surroundings, undertakes decoration, repairs and maintenance work, looks after the needs of the children and any aged member of the household, manages budgets and so much more, ”he said.
In rural farming, they often also assist in sowing, harvesting and transplanting activities in farms, apart from tending cattle, he said. The issue of fixing notional income for a homemaker, therefore, served an extremely important function and was a recognition of the multitude of women engaged in this activity, whether by choice or as a result of social / cultural norms, the SC said.
“It signals to society at large that the law and courts of the land believe in the value of the labor, services and sacrifices of homemakers. It is an acceptance of the idea that these activities contribute in a very real way to the economic condition of the family, and the economy of the nation, regardless of the fact that it may have been traditionally excluded from economic analyses. It is a reflection of changing attitudes and mindsets and of our international law obligations. And, most importantly, it is a step towards the constitutional vision of social equality and ensuring dignity of life to all individuals, ” the bench said.