In a significant observation on the economic and social value of unpaid care work, the Supreme Court noted that employed women, on average, work longer hours than men when domestic responsibilities are included. The court made this remark while explaining its rationale for extending maternity benefits to all adoptive mothers, regardless of the age of the adopted child. It struck down laws barring maternity leave for women adopting children above three months, emphasising no difference between biological and adopted children. Quoting poet Fleur Conkling Heyliger, the court said, “Not flesh of my flesh, nor bone of my bone, but still miraculously my own.”
The ruling highlighted the “institutional invisibility” of household and care work, crucial to family and economic functioning. Citing International Labour Organization studies, the bench of Justices JB Pardiwalah and R Mahadevan noted that women’s unpaid labour—ranging from feeding and bathing children to managing household tasks—is indispensable yet unrecognised and uncompensated.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
Acknowledging the dual roles women often play, the court invoked the Wollstonecraft Dilemma, which captures the tension between caregiving responsibilities and professional participation. It stressed that failing to account for these realities perpetuates structural inequality.
The court described maternity benefits as instruments of substantive equality, supporting women to remain in the workforce while fulfilling caregiving duties. It noted that adoption can be equally demanding and the initial months require significant time and attention. Expecting women to maintain full professional output immediately after a child’s arrival is inequitable.
Finally, the court urged the Centre to implement paternity leave policies, underscoring that caregiving should be shared and recognising women’s unpaid work is not just a private matter but a vital contributor to the economy.
