Supreme Court Justice Sanjay Karol's Tenure Marked by Judgments on Homemakers Rights and Live-In Protection

Retiring on August 22 after three-and-a-half years on the Supreme Court bench and over 19 years as a constitutional court judge, Justice Sanjay Karol leaves behind a body of work that redefined the boundaries of judicial intervention. His judgments consistently treated individual disputes as windows into deeper institutional and social problems, often issuing sweeping directions that went far beyond the relief sought by the litigants. From recognising the unpaid labour of homemakers to protecting live-in partners from domestic cruelty, and from tackling black money in elections to overhauling motor vehicle insurance norms, his tenure was a masterclass in activist judging.

A New Head of Compensation: Recognising the Homemaker

One of the most significant contributions came in a motor accident claim case where a homemaker had died. Rejecting the conventional approach that treated the homemaker as a dependent, Justice Karol authored a judgment that created an entirely new compensable head: loss of domestic care. He held that the value of such services should be fixed at a minimum of ₹30,000 per month, over and above the standard heads under the Pranay Sethi framework. "It is ironic to describe a homemaker as dependant on earning members, when, in reality the household's functioning depends substantially on the homemaker," the judgment observed. This ruling is expected to significantly alter the way tribunals assess compensation in fatal accident cases involving homemakers across the country.

Live-In Relationships and the Reach of Section 498A

In Dr. Lokesh BH & Ors. v. State of Karnataka , Justice Karol addressed a vexed question: whether Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code —which criminalises cruelty by a husband or his relatives—could apply to live-in relationships that were not formally solemnised marriages. The Court held that it could, provided the relationship qualified as one " in the nature of marriage ," with an intent to marry as an intrinsic element. Excluding such women from protection, the judgment reasoned, would create an unconstitutional distinction under Article 14 . The decision anchored the statutory interpretation in broader constitutional values of autonomy, dignity, and the right to choose one's partner under Article 21 , reinforcing that the exercise of choice in relationships cannot result in a denial of legal safeguards against domestic cruelty .

Stemming Black Money in Elections

In State of Karnataka & Anr. v. Prathik Parasrampuria , Justice Karol confronted the pernicious influence of unaccounted cash on electoral integrity. Observing that the use of black money strikes at the very essence of democracy, the Court did not stop at deciding the case's immediate facts. It issued a general direction that during an election cycle, no criminal case against a candidate can be withdrawn without the approval of the High Court. This was a pragmatic step to insulate the electoral process from executive discretion and to curb the weaponisation of withdrawals for political gain.

Stray Cattle, Road Safety, and State Responsibility

The case of Nisha v. Municipal Council, Sangrur began as a fatal accident claim involving stray cattle. But Justice Karol expanded the scope to address the larger issue of state responsibility for road safety. Noting the high number of deaths caused by animal-related incidents, the Court directed states to compensate victims and suggested proactive measures to prevent cattle from roaming on highways. He also lamented the societal hypocrisy around stray animals, observing that people object to cattle being used for food but readily abandon them after their utility ends.

Overcrowding in Railways: More Than a Safety Issue

In Lata v. Union of India , the Court dealt with the tragic deaths of passengers who fell from overcrowded trains. Beyond ordering the Railways to take effective measures to address overcrowding, Justice Karol raised a more symbolic point: he questioned the terminology "second class passenger." The bench suggested that class distinctions should attach to the coach, not to the passenger, making it clear that every individual deserves equal dignity regardless of the compartment they travel in.

Reforming Motor Vehicle Insurance

Alarmed by the statistic that 16.54 crore vehicles out of 30.48 crore on Indian roads are uninsured, Justice Karol's bench directed that third-party insurance for new cars must be for four years and for new two-wheelers for six years. The Court also directed the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDAI) and the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways to evolve a pilot project linking vehicle insurance status to fuel supply at petrol pumps. This would enable denial of fuel to vehicles without valid third-party insurance, a creative and practical enforcement mechanism.

POCSO and the Romeo-Juliet Clause

Perhaps the most socially nuanced intervention came in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh & Anr. , where the Court confronted the harsh application of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act to consensual adolescent relationships with a small age difference. Justice Karol suggested that the Union Government consider introducing a "Romeo-Juliet clause" to distinguish such relationships from cases of exploitation or abuse. The judgment underscored that the law must protect children, not criminalise ordinary adolescent behaviour that lacks predatory intent.

UAPA Trials and the Reverse Burden

In a bail matter arising from the Jnaneshwari Express derailment case, Justice Karol addressed the prolonged detention of accused under laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act , which impose a reverse burden of proof . The Court directed High Courts to examine the status of pending trials under such special statutes, with cases pending for more than five years to receive particular attention, including day-to-day hearings . "If the State places a greater burden upon an accused through a special statute, the criminal justice system must correspondingly ensure that the trial does not remain pending indefinitely," the judgment stated.

Systemic Reforms: Legal Aid, Driving Licences, and Fake Sureties

Justice Karol’s instinct for systemic reform extended to administrative processes. In a case concerning delays in legal aid appeals, he issued a comprehensive Standard Operating Procedure with binding timelines, giving highest priority to cases involving death sentences, life imprisonment, or sentences of ten years or more. He also directed nationwide awareness campaigns on the importance of valid driving licences and advocated for better regulation of driving schools, including regional language accessibility. In a case on fake sureties in NDPS cases involving foreign nationals, the Court recognised impersonation as a systemic problem and issued guidelines for bail to foreign nationals, calling for a comprehensive examination of professional bail bondsmen.

Conclusion

Justice Sanjay Karol’s tenure demonstrates how a judge can use the judicial platform to address systemic flaws while remaining faithful to the rule of law. His judgments were not mere resolutions of disputes; they were blueprints for institutional reform. Whether by granting homemakers independent economic recognition, shielding live-in partners from cruelty, or demanding accountability from the state on road safety and electoral integrity, he consistently expanded the frontiers of constitutional protection. As the legal community reflects on his legacy, it is clear that the impact of his work will resonate for years to come in courtrooms, policy debates, and the daily lives of citizens.