Recognizing Homemakers as Nation Builders, Supreme Court Quantifies Their Monthly Contribution at ₹30,000 for Motor Accident Compensation

Loss Of Domestic Care: An Additional Head

20. It is in these circumstances, that we deem it appropriate to direct that when a Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal or the High Court or this Court is concerned with or a case involving the death of a homemaker, in order to overcome the inherent disadvantage accrued against the homemaker on a calculation of compensation on the basis of conservatively computed notional income and while being acutely aware of the dictum in Pranay Sethi (supra) regarding loss of consortium as also the disposition towards uniformity, that for the three major heads (the homemaker’s contribution towards smooth functioning of the household, the loss of maternal support for children and loss of spousal support/the support and care of their child who is an adult, for the parents of the deceased) discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, a composite sum of Rs.30,000/- shall be added under the head of ‘loss of domestic care’, provided that all three of these heads are met in the given case. This determination shall be revised by 10%, cumulatively, every three years. It may be clearly stated that this amount of Rs.30,000/- i.e., loss of domestic care is to be taken as a ‘standin’ (basic minimum monthly income) for monthly income in those cases where the homemaker does not have an input into the house, in strictly conventional, monetary terms. In those cases where the homemaker is part of the workforce, the component of loss of domestic care shall be in addition to the monthly income as may be proved before the Tribunal/Courts.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO……………………… OF 2026

(@Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.33915 of 2025)

SHISHU PAL @ SHISH RAM & ORS. Vs SURJEET & ORS.

Author: SANJAY KAROL J.,

Dated: June 11, 2026

Citation:  2026 INSC 634

Print Page

Understanding Liberty: A Student’s Guide to BNSS Bail Jurisprudence

 The concept of bail represents the most significant intersection between criminal procedure and constitutional law. In the Indian legal landscape, this field has undergone a profound transformation with the enactment of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). This guide serves as a curriculum roadmap for students to navigate the shift from a discretion-heavy past toward a future defined by the "Constitutionalization of Bail."

1. The Bedrock of Freedom: Article 21 and the Constitution

Every statutory provision regarding bail must be interpreted through the lens of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. This article is not merely a legal clause but the foundation upon which the entire architecture of personal liberty is constructed.

Print Page

Bail under BNSS 2023: From Judicial Discretion to the Constitutionalization of Bail

 The concept of bail is perhaps the single most important meeting point of criminal procedure and constitutional law. In India, this intersection has been re‑drawn with the enactment of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which replaces the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and came into force on 1 July 2024. For students, practitioners, and judges, understanding this transition—from a discretion‑heavy system to a more rule‑based and rights‑oriented framework—is essential.

This article offers a consolidated roadmap: it starts from Article 21, tracks the shift from CrPC to BNSS, explains the “triple test”, analyses key provisions like Sections 187 and 479, critically examines internal tensions such as Sections 479(2) and 482(4), and situates BNSS within the wider “dual bail regime” created by special laws like UAPA and PMLA.

1. Article 21: The bedrock of bail jurisprudence

Print Page

Supreme Court: Accused can be permitted to go abroad for his business or professional work

We are called upon to decide only whether the Appellant should be permitted to travel to the US for eight weeks. In evaluating this issue, we must have regard to the nature of the allegations, the conduct of the Appellant and above all, the need to ensure that he does not pose a risk of evading the prosecution. The details which have been furnished to the Court by the Appellant, indicate that he has regularly travelled between the US and India on as many as sixteen occasions between 2015 and 2020. He has maintained a close contact with India. The view of the High Court that he has no contact with India is contrary to the material on record. The lodging of an FIR should not in the facts of the present case be a bar on the travel of the Appellant to the US for eight weeks to attend to the business of revalidating his Green Card. The conditions which a court imposes for the grant of bail - in this case temporary bail - have to balance the public interest in the enforcement of criminal justice with the rights of the Accused. The human right to dignity and the protection of constitutional safeguards should not become illusory by the imposition of conditions which are disproportionate to the need to secure the presence of the Accused, the proper course of investigation and eventually to ensure a fair trial. The conditions which are imposed by the court must bear a proportional relationship to the purpose of imposing the conditions. The nature of the risk which is posed by the grant of permission as sought in this case must be carefully evaluated in each case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 648 of 2020 

Decided On: 01.10.2020

Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee, JJ.

Author:Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.

Citation: 2020 INSC 573, MANU/SC/0743/2020.

Print Page