Week of June 8–14: SC Sets a ₹30,000/Month Value on a Homemaker's Domestic Care

Welcome to this week’s issue of the Indian Legal Brief (ILB). Here are the judgments, orders, regulatory changes, and developments that matter to your practice — without the noise.

The Supreme Court is in its partial-working-days regime until July 13, so the week ran on vacation benches — but it was anything but quiet. A Thursday cluster from the Karol–Kotiswar Singh bench reshaped how courts must value a homemaker’s work, doubted a long-standing rule on split-verdict criminal appeals, and tightened the rules on psychologically testing children in custody fights. Off the bench, it was Anil Ambani’s week in two different rooms — the NCLT admitted a personal-insolvency case against him while the Bombay High Court shielded him from coercive action in a Black Money Act challenge. Add an RBI push to pull in foreign-currency deposits, a Delhi High Court warning to social-media platforms, and an organised Bar response to threats against a retired judge, and there is plenty to get through. Here’s what happened.

Supreme Court Highlights

Homemakers Are “Nation Builders”: A New ₹30,000/Month Head for Loss of Domestic Care — Shishu Pal v. Surjeet

Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh — June 11, 2026

In a motor-accident death claim, the Supreme Court did something it had circled for years but never quite fixed: it made the homemaker’s contribution a distinct, separately compensable head of damages. A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh held that the loss of a homemaker’s domestic services — “loss of domestic care” — must be valued and awarded on its own, over and above the conventional “loss of dependency”, and set a national minimum notional value of ₹30,000 a month for that work.

Applying it to the legal heirs of a woman killed on the Sirsa–Fatehabad road, the Court enhanced compensation from the roughly ₹8.43 lakh awarded by the High Court to ₹62,77,900. The Bench was emphatic that the ₹30,000 figure is a floor, not a ceiling, and is to be revised upward over time.

It is high time now that the invisible is made visible… the “homemakers”, to put it directly, actually are the “nation builders” and they ought to be recognised as such.

Why it matters: Motor Accident Claims Tribunals and High Courts must now compute a homemaker’s lost domestic services as a separate head of compensation with a Rs 30,000-a-month floor — not fold it into a notional dependency figure. Expect immediate recalculation arguments in pending MACT appeals, and a higher baseline in every claim where a homemaker is killed or disabled.

Larger Bench to Decide How Far a Split-Verdict “Tie-Breaker” Judge Can Reopen — Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P.

Bench: Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma — June 11, 2026

When a two-judge Bench splits on a criminal appeal, the case goes to a third “referee” judge under Section 392 CrPC. For over two decades, Sajjan Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1999) has been read to mean that the third judge hears the whole matter afresh and is not bound by anything the original two judges agreed on. A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma has now doubted that breadth and referred the question to a larger Bench.

The doubt is narrow but consequential: can the tie-breaker judge disturb findings on which the two original judges were unanimous — for instance, reversing the acquittal or conviction of a co-accused over whom there was no disagreement at all? The Court suggested the referee’s options are “not too wide”.

A mechanical application of the law laid down in Sajjan Singh would render these integral components of a just and fair criminal justice delivery system redundant.

Why it matters: Until the larger Bench rules, there is genuine uncertainty about how much a third judge can reopen in any split-verdict criminal appeal. Criminal-appellate counsel should preserve the point — both to invoke and to resist a referee judge straying beyond the actual area of disagreement.

No Routine Psychological Testing of Children in Custody Disputes, SC Holds — Sheetal Vasant Thakur v. Chirag Arora

Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh — June 11, 2026

Setting aside a Bombay High Court direction that a minor be assessed by a four-member expert panel, the Supreme Court held that multi-layered psychological evaluation of a child risks re-traumatisation and secondary victimisation — a danger sharpened here by pending POCSO allegations against the father. The Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh substituted a single neutral psychologist and laid down child-centric, trauma-informed principles: minimum intrusion, and no evaluation as a matter of course simply because custody, visitation or access is in dispute.

Psychological or psychiatric evaluation of a child victim shall not be directed as a matter of routine merely because issues of custody, visitation or parental access arise between litigating parents/relatives.

Why it matters: Family courts and High Courts now have binding guardrails on when — and how intrusively — a child may be psychologically assessed in custody and access matters, especially where POCSO allegations overlap. Directly usable by family-law counsel framing or resisting an evaluation direction.

Form ‘F’ Gaps Aren’t a “Technical” Lapse: SC Says PCPNDT Record-Keeping Is Mandatory — Dr. Ramesh v. State of Maharashtra

Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra — June 11, 2026

Dismissing a sonography-centre operator’s appeal, the Supreme Court held that complete and accurate maintenance of Form ‘F’ under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994 is statutory and mandatory — incomplete or blank entries are not clerical slips but go to the heart of the scheme and can themselves constitute an offence. The Bench affirmed the District Civil Surgeon as the competent “Appropriate Authority” and called for strict enforcement of the prohibition on sex selection.

The columns of Form ‘F’ are entirely mandatory.

Why it matters: This forecloses the standard defence that Form ‘F’ gaps are trivial paperwork. Prosecutors get a clear holding to rely on, and diagnostic centres — and the counsel advising them — should treat record-keeping lapses as live criminal exposure, not compoundable housekeeping.

Other Notable SC Orders This Week

Meenakshi Natarajan’s Rajya Sabha plea sent to an election petition (June 12) — A Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and A.S. Chandurkar dismissed the Congress leader’s writ challenging the rejection of her Rajya Sabha nomination from Madhya Pradesh, holding that the grievance must be pursued through an election petition under the Representation of the People Act rather than in writ jurisdiction.

Insolvency & Corporate

NCLT Admits SBI’s Personal-Insolvency Case Against Anil Ambani on a ₹853-Crore Default — State Bank of India v. Anil Ambani

NCLT, Mumbai Bench — June 11, 2026

The National Company Law Tribunal’s Mumbai bench admitted SBI’s application to initiate the personal-insolvency resolution process against Anil Ambani in his capacity as personal guarantor for loans to Reliance Communications and Reliance Infratel. The claimed default is ₹853.25 crore, traced to a personal guarantee Ambani executed in favour of the bank in September 2016 for facilities extended to the two group companies.

On admission, the Tribunal declared a moratorium over the personal guarantor’s debts and directed the appointed resolution professional to issue a public notice inviting creditor claims. A spokesperson said the order would be “reviewed by his legal team and challenged through appropriate legal remedies”, adding that the borrowings were availed by RCOM and that Ambani “derived no personal benefit” from the funds.

Why it matters: A high-profile reminder that a promoter’s personal guarantee for group-company borrowing remains fully enforceable through the IBC’s personal-guarantor route years later — and that admission brings an automatic moratorium and an RP-run claims process. Expect an NCLAT appeal; watch how the moratorium interacts with the parallel tax proceedings against him (below).

IBBI’s CIRP Amendment: Operational-Creditor Observers and Tighter Cost Control

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India — June 8, 2026

The IBBI notified the CIRP (Fourth Amendment) Regulations, 2026, with three substantive changes to the corporate-insolvency process. Where non-bank creditors hold more than 66% of voting share, the resolution professional must now invite the five largest unrelated operational creditors — including the largest government or statutory dues — as non-voting observers to the Committee of Creditors, with their observations minuted.

On cost discipline, the RP must place all CIRP costs incurred so far, with justification, before the CoC for approval at its first meeting and seek approval before incurring future costs, and must prepare a “Going Concern Assessment Report” on which the CoC decides whether operations continue. Finally, the CoC must now record its deliberations on each resolution plan’s feasibility and viability, expected recovery against fair and liquidation value, and the adequacy of market discovery during the process.

Why it matters: Operational creditors get a formal voice in financially-engineered CoCs, RPs face sharper accountability on runaway costs, and CoC decisions must now be reasoned on the record — material that will feature in future commercial-wisdom and judicial-review challenges. Resolution professionals should fold the new disclosure, cost-approval and minuting steps into live processes now.

Regulatory Watch

RBI Opens an FCNR(B) Forex-Swap Window and a CRR/SLR Holiday to Pull In Dollar Deposits

Reserve Bank of India — June 8, 2026

Following the Governor’s June 5 announcement, the RBI rolled out a package aimed at attracting foreign-currency inflows and easing system liquidity. Authorised-dealer banks can now use a USD–INR swap facility on fresh FCNR(B) deposits of three-to-five-year tenor, with freedom to price such deposits within existing ceilings; the swap window stays open until October 16, 2026 for deposits mobilised up to September 30.

In parallel, fresh FCNR(B) deposits of that tenor raised between June 8 and September 30 are exempt from CRR and SLR, and a similar USD–INR swap facility is available for external commercial borrowings raised by PSUs and for overseas foreign-currency borrowings by AD banks, each with a minimum three-year maturity.

Why it matters: A coordinated push to shore up forex reserves and liquidity amid rupee pressure. Treasury and banking counsel should map the eligibility windows, the deposit-pricing freedom, and the CRR/SLR carve-out timeline into client compliance now — the carve-out is time-boxed to deposits mobilised by September 30.

Other Notable Regulatory Moves

SEBI gives merchant bankers more runway (June 11) — SEBI pushed back the deadlines set by its January 2 circular operationalising the 2025 Merchant Bankers amendments: the separate-business-unit transfer of non-MB activities moves to December 31, 2026, the enhanced net-worth norms phase in to March 2027 and March 2028, and Category I/II self-categorisation to March 2027. Only the timelines move; the substantive obligations stand.
CCI clears three cross-border deals (June 9–10) — The Competition Commission approved ANTA Sports’ indirect acquisition of a 29.06% stake in PUMA SE, Sanlam’s 2.80% preferential stake in Shriram Life Insurance, and Dubai Aerospace Enterprise’s acquisition of Macquarie AirFinance.

From the High Courts

Platforms Can’t Be “Silent Spectators”: Delhi HC on Posts Scandalising Judges

Bench: Justices Neena Bansal Krishna and Madhu Jain — June 8, 2026

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court ordered intermediaries to take down five specified URLs within 24 hours and block the accounts of a man who had publicly branded a sitting High Court judge a “murderer” over a Saket building collapse. The Court held that platforms cannot be “silent spectators” and need not wait for a court order before acting on content that maligns judges; it also directed preservation of metadata and IP logs and disclosure of subscriber information in sealed cover.

The Bench was careful to preserve the line between criticism and contempt: fair criticism of judicial work is protected, but attributing corruption, collusion or criminality to judges without a lawful basis is not.

Freedom of speech does not extend to publications which prima facie scandalise the Court, undermine public confidence in the administration of justice, or interfere with the independent discharge of judicial functions.

Why it matters: A pointed addition to the intermediary-liability debate — proactive takedown duties on platforms for judiciary-targeting content, framed against the Section 79 safe-harbour. Media and platform counsel should note the “don’t wait for a court order” framing and the metadata-preservation directions.

Bombay HC Shields Anil Ambani From Coercive Action, Admits His Black Money Act Challenge — Anil Ambani v. Union of India

Bench: Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Firdosh Pooniwalla — June 9, 2026

In the same week the NCLT admitted a personal-insolvency case against him, Anil Ambani secured interim protection from the Bombay High Court in a tax matter. The Bench admitted his writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of provisions of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 as ultra vires, and restrained coercive action — prosecution or penalty — pending final hearing. The dispute concerns alleged undisclosed foreign assets of around ₹814 crore and a tax demand exceeding ₹420 crore tied to two Swiss accounts; the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A) may continue.

Why it matters: A rare admitted constitutional challenge to the Black Money Act’s machinery, now with interim cover against coercive steps — one to watch for taxpayers facing undisclosed-foreign-asset proceedings, and a marker of how the Act’s validity may finally be tested on the merits.

Other Notable High Court Orders

Madras HC seeks the Centre’s and State’s response on the order of national songs at state ceremonies (June 12) — A Bench led by Chief Justice S.A. Dharmadhikari issued notice on a PIL challenging an MHA order on the sequencing of the National Anthem and Vande Mataram at state functions, which the petitioner says relegates the Tamil Thai Vaazhthu to third position.
Bombay HC seeks the NIA’s reply on Varavara Rao’s plea to shift to Hyderabad (June 12) — The Court issued notice on the 85-year-old Bhima Koregaon accused’s request, on health and affordability grounds, to permanently relocate from Mumbai, after a special NIA court rejected it in March.
Delhi HC cancels the “GLASS SKIN” trademark as descriptive — Holding the K-beauty term descriptive and lacking secondary meaning — and noting industry-wide use by Nykaa, Garnier, Lakmé and others — the Court ordered cancellation of its registration.

At the Bar

Bombay Bar Condemns Threats to Retired Justice Gautam Patel, Moves HC for Security

Bombay Bar Association — June 8, 2026

The Bombay Bar Association passed an eight-point resolution condemning threats and intimidation directed at retired Bombay High Court judge Justice Gautam Patel and his family, stemming from his April 2024 verdict in the Dawoodi Bohra succession dispute. Together with the Advocates’ Association of Western India and the Bombay Incorporated Law Society, the Bar moved the High Court seeking enhanced security and a court-monitored investigation, and urged the Ministry of External Affairs to engage UK authorities after a family member was reportedly assaulted abroad.

Why it matters: A rare, organised Bar mobilisation around post-retirement judicial security and independence — a reminder that the protection of judges who decide hard cases does not end at superannuation, and a story to watch as the security plea is heard.

Allahabad HC Holds the Lucknow Lawyers’ Strike Illegal, Issues Contempt Notices — Anuradha Singh v. State of U.P.

Bench: Justices Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Rajeev Bharti — June 8, 2026

Taking up a PIL on encroachment removal, the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that the May 18–26 boycott of judicial work by members of the Central Bar Association and Lucknow Bar Association — called to protest a municipal demolition drive — was unjustified and illegal. The Court issued show-cause notices to bar office-bearers and three advocates on why criminal contempt should not be initiated, noting that only a fraction of the targeted encroachments were removed amid alleged obstruction by advocates.

The conduct of the Advocates is not only unjustified but the same is illegal also.

Why it matters: Another firm judicial line against lawyer strikes and the obstruction of court work — consistent with a string of rulings treating boycotts as professional misconduct and contempt rather than legitimate protest.

Other Notable at the Bar

Anjana Om Kashyap’s ₹2-crore defamation suit against “Khan Sir” (June 8) — The Delhi High Court issued notice but declined immediate interim relief in the journalist’s and TV Today’s defamation suit against educator Faisal Khan over remarks on alleged NEET irregularities; the matter is next listed on June 17.

What We’re Watching Next Week

Sabarimala reference — The nine-judge verdict, reserved on May 14, remains awaited; movement is unlikely until the Court resumes regular sittings on July 13.
§138 NI Act / IBC moratorium — Constitution of the larger Bench (referred May 27) to decide whether the §14 moratorium bars §138 prosecutions against directors.
UAPA bail — Both the pending larger-bench reference and, downstream, the fresh trial-court bail pleas of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi-riots conspiracy case, listed for July 4.
NEET-UG 2026 re-exam — With admit cards released June 14, the pen-and-paper re-test goes ahead on June 21; the leak-batch and computer-based-test pleas are tagged for after the vacation.
Anil Ambani — A likely NCLAT appeal against the personal-insolvency admission, and the next steps in the Bombay HC Black Money Act challenge.

That’s all for this week. If a colleague would find this useful, forward them this page — or better yet, ask them to subscribe.

SC Sets a ₹30,000/Month Value on a Homemaker's Domestic Care