5 min readJun 19, 2026 06:30 AM IST First published on: Jun 19, 2026 at 06:30 AM ISTThe recent Supreme Court ruling acknowledging the contribution of women “homemakers” is definitely a significant step in recognising the invisible and unpaid work of women in the country. Valuation of women’s contribution to unpaid housework and care work is riddled with issues, as it is always entangled with familial relations. The compensation of Rs 30,000, as the ruling mentions, is a notional figure and thus can be seen as an acknowledgement of the priceless value of the labour of women that is otherwise largely underestimated. This large-scale underestimation of women’s contribution to housework is evident in the cash transfer schemes that various political parties and state governments have offered or are offering to women in multiple states, which mostly range between Rs 1,000 and Rs 2,500 per month. The poor honoraria paid to community workers, be they Anganwadi workers, ASHAs or others, is another example. It is critical to flag this ongoing undervaluation of women’s work while they are actively contributing to nation-building, whether as homemakers or as care workers.While the judgment has surely opened up the way for a discussion on women’s unpaid and undervalued work and their contribution to the economy, it raises multiple concerns. The first is the anxiety that many scholars of women’s studies have raised, ever since the campaign on Wages for Housework in the 1970s, of a possible reiteration of gendered roles. The discussions around cash transfer schemes recognising women’s housework in various states also highlighted the possible adverse effect of such schemes on women’s economic status, given the poor participation of women in employment. At a time when women’s share in higher education has surpassed male shares, equipping women to break gendered norms, the terminology of “homemakers” may end up in deceleration or reversal of such positive changes.AdvertisementThe judgment acknowledging women’s unequal housework and care -work burden highlights it as a reason for the low female labour force participation. However, it does not delve much into this aspect, but goes on reiterating women’s contribution in building, nurturing and maintaining human capital and thus being nation-builders. The lack of choice for women, whether to shoulder gendered roles or not, does not find any mention amidst this glorification of their contribution to families and the economy. Women’s labour force participation in urban areas is very low, lower than that of their counterparts in rural areas, and much below male rates. In 2024-25, as per the PLFS data, the urban workforce participation rate of women (ages 15 plus) was only about 26 per cent, as against 45 per cent for rural women. Notably, the male-female difference was about 47 percentage points, with male participation rates at 73 per cent.In rural areas, agriculture, the most important sector of women’s employment, allows for intermittent paid and unpaid housework and care work, while in urban areas, such possibilities are few and conditional. The poor presence of married women and women with young children in jobs that are better paid is an issue that also needs attention. Studies in the context of flexible employment have also shown how women’s choices are determined by gendered social and familial expectations around housework and care work. Without adequate policies that could help in the reduction and redistribution of housework and care work, women’s employment outcomes will continue to be compromised.The judgment is significant when read with the dismissal of the public interest petition Penn Thozhilalargal Sangam Versus Union of India, filed by 10 trade unions of domestic workers on the issue of minimum wages. This petition was disposed of by the Supreme Court this year, directing the unions to appeal to the state government. What seems contradictory to the current progressive position of the Court is the view that it held on the matter of minimum wages for domestic workers. The observation that minimum-wage regulation for domestic work can trigger an increase in litigation with unintended consequences, including the possibility of domestic workers losing their jobs, seems to contradict the current valuation argument. Or, is it that housework and care work performed by women in their own homes are worthier than the work carried out by poor women who are hired for such services? By entertaining the domestic workers’ petition, the Court, alongside this landmark judgment, could have set the floor towards the valuation of housework and care work for different segments of women, whether part of the family or otherwise.AdvertisementThe writer is professor, Centre for Women’s Development Studies, New Delhi