India’s Care Economy Relies on Women Workers Who Remain ‘Volunteers’

The care economy refers to the sector of the economy that provides services related to healthcare, childcare, elderly care, and social welfare. In India, this ecosystem relies heavily on grassroots workers such as Accredited Social Health Activists (ASHAs), Anganwadi workers and helpers, and mid-day meal workers. These workers act as the last-mile delivery agents of the welfare state, ensuring that critical public services reach vulnerable populations in rural and urban areas.

For instance, ASHA workers function as community health facilitators under the National Health Mission. They monitor pregnancies, ensure immunisation coverage, spread awareness about sanitation and nutrition, and link communities with primary healthcare services. Similarly, Anganwadi workers under the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) scheme provide supplementary nutrition, preschool education, and health monitoring for children and mothers. Mid-day meal workers support the implementation of the PM POSHAN (Mid-Day Meal) Scheme, which addresses classroom hunger and promotes school attendance.

Despite performing essential functions, these workers are often classified as “volunteers” rather than formal employees. This means they receive small honorariums instead of regular salaries, and they lack employment protections such as pensions, paid leave, and maternity benefits. The paradox lies in the fact that while the state depends on these workers for the functioning of key welfare programmes, their labour remains informal, undervalued, and insecure.

Thus, India’s care economy is sustained by a vast grassroots workforce that acts as the backbone of public welfare delivery. Recognising and formalising their contribution is essential for strengthening both social protection systems and human development outcomes.

The classification of frontline care workers such as ASHA workers, Anganwadi workers, and mid-day meal staff as ‘volunteers’ raises serious concerns related to labour rights, governance, and social justice. Although they perform essential public functions, their designation as volunteers allows the state to avoid providing the legal protections normally associated with formal employment.

From a labour rights perspective, this arrangement creates a precarious employment structure. These workers typically receive small honorariums rather than fixed salaries and often lack benefits such as social security, paid leave, maternity protection, and pension schemes. The absence of formal contracts also limits their ability to seek legal recourse in cases of delayed payments or unsafe working conditions. Such conditions are inconsistent with principles of decent work promoted by the International Labour Organization (ILO).

From a governance standpoint, the reliance on a large informal workforce undermines the sustainability of welfare programmes. Public schemes such as ICDS, the National Health Mission, and PM POSHAN depend heavily on these workers for implementation. However, low wages and job insecurity can reduce motivation, increase attrition, and weaken service delivery in the long run.

Additionally, this classification reflects a deeper structural issue in India’s policy framework. Care work is often seen as an extension of women’s domestic responsibilities rather than a specialised skill. As a result, the state benefits from cheap labour while maintaining the façade of voluntary service. Addressing this contradiction is essential for building a more equitable and effective welfare system.

The concept of the ‘care penalty’ refers to the economic and social disadvantages faced by individuals, particularly women, who perform caregiving roles. In India, this penalty arises from a combination of deeply embedded social norms, labour market inequalities, and policy gaps.

One major factor is the gendered division of labour. According to insights from the 2024 Time Use Survey, women between the ages of 15 and 59 spend significantly more time on unpaid caregiving activities than men. On average, 41% of women spend around 140 minutes per day on caregiving, compared to only 21.4% of men who spend about 74 minutes. This unequal distribution of responsibilities limits women’s opportunities for formal employment and economic advancement.

Another structural factor is the institutional design of welfare programmes. Government schemes frequently rely on women workers labelled as volunteers, reinforcing the perception that caregiving is a natural extension of women’s domestic duties. This leads to systematic undervaluation of care work, where tasks requiring skills such as health awareness, community mobilisation, and data reporting are treated as informal activities.

The result is a self-reinforcing cycle. Because care work is perceived as low-skilled and socially expected from women, it is underpaid. Since it is underpaid, it continues to be viewed as low-skilled. Breaking this cycle requires recognising care work as productive labour that contributes directly to public health, nutrition, and human development. Only then can policies address the care penalty through fair wages, social protection, and gender-sensitive labour reforms.

The Union Budget 2026–27 proposes to train 1.5 lakh multiskilled caregivers in geriatric care and allied sectors through programmes aligned with the National Skills Qualification Framework (NSQF). While this initiative aims to expand India’s care infrastructure, its success depends on effectively integrating the existing workforce that already performs similar roles.

One possible approach is skill upgradation. Existing ASHA and Anganwadi workers possess extensive field experience in maternal health, nutrition counselling, and community mobilisation. Extending NSQF-certified training programmes to them would formally recognise their expertise and enhance their career mobility. For example, trained workers could transition into specialised roles such as community health supervisors, geriatric care assistants, or public health educators.

Another approach involves institutional reforms. The government could develop clear pathways for converting honorary positions into regular posts with defined wages, contracts, and benefits. This would ensure that skill development initiatives translate into improved livelihoods rather than merely expanding the workforce without addressing structural inequities.

Finally, integrating the existing workforce would also improve service delivery outcomes. Workers who are already embedded within communities have strong trust networks and local knowledge. Leveraging these strengths can make India’s care ecosystem more efficient, inclusive, and sustainable while avoiding duplication of efforts in training new personnel.

The Union Budget’s proposal to train new caregivers highlights a significant paradox within India’s care economy. On one hand, the state recognises the growing demand for professional care services due to factors such as population ageing, rising healthcare needs, and expanding welfare programmes. On the other hand, it continues to rely on millions of existing frontline workers who remain underpaid and informally employed.

This paradox has several implications. First, it reveals an inconsistency in policy priorities. While the government invests in developing a skilled care workforce for the future, it does not adequately address the working conditions of the five million women already sustaining welfare programmes. Ignoring this workforce risks creating a dual system in which newly trained caregivers receive better opportunities while experienced workers remain marginalised.

Second, the paradox exposes gendered biases in labour valuation. Since most frontline care workers are women, their labour is often treated as an extension of traditional caregiving roles rather than as professional work. This reinforces structural inequality and perpetuates the undervaluation of women’s contributions to public welfare.

However, the situation also presents an opportunity. If policymakers align new training initiatives with reforms in employment status and wages, the expansion of the care sector could generate both improved service delivery and inclusive economic growth. Thus, resolving this paradox requires integrating workforce development with labour rights and gender equality policies.

The Supreme Court’s 2025 judgment in Dharam Singh & Anr. vs State of U.P. & Anr. provides an important legal precedent in the debate surrounding the employment status of India’s frontline care workers. In this case, the Court held that work which is continuous, recurring, and central to the functioning of an institution cannot be treated as temporary indefinitely. This principle has significant implications for workers who have long been classified as volunteers despite performing essential duties.

Applying this reasoning to India’s care workforce reveals the structural contradiction in existing policies. ASHA workers, Anganwadi workers, and mid-day meal staff perform duties that are integral to the implementation of major government programmes such as the National Health Mission and ICDS. Their roles are not occasional or voluntary; rather, they involve regular responsibilities such as monitoring health indicators, delivering nutrition services, and coordinating welfare schemes.

The judgment therefore strengthens the argument that such workers should receive formal recognition, fair wages, and employment protections. It also provides legal grounds for policy reforms that convert honorary positions into permanent posts. If implemented effectively, the ruling could reshape India’s care economy by aligning labour practices with constitutional principles of dignity, equality, and social justice.

In this sense, the Dharam Singh case represents more than a legal decision; it offers a framework for rethinking how the state values and compensates the labour of millions of women who sustain the country’s welfare architecture.