Do not stigmatise housewives

 Jul 23, 2010

In a scathing observation that underscores the government’s insensitivity to gender issues, the Supreme Court on Friday said the Centre’s move to equate 36 crore housewives with beggars, prostitutes in the 2001 Census was unfair and wholly uncalled for.

‘’In the Census of 2001 it appears that those who are doing household duties like cooking, cleaning of utensils, looking after children… collecting firewood, have been categorised as non-workers and equated them with beggars, prostitutes and prisoners,’’ said Justice A K Ganguly, in a dissenting judgment.

By its observations, the Court drove home the point that it was unfair on the part of the government to view housewives and home-making as old-fashioned and an economic burden to society.

While deciding a case on compensation to housewives in an automobile accident case, the Bench of Justice Ganguly and Justice G S Singhvi said it was highly unfair, unjust and inappropriate to compute the compensation payable to the dependents of a deceased woman (wife or mother) who did not have any regular income.

It would be unfair to compare her services with that of a housekeeper or a servant or an employee, who works for a fixed period, whereas a woman is part of the family and her contribution cannot be quantified, they observed.

‘’We hope and trust that in the ongoing Census operation this will be corrected,’’ the apex court said, asking the Centre to correct the wrong it had meted out to a majority of women in the country.

Justice Ganguly observed that there is a distinct gender bias against women in India despite the Constitution recommended for eschewing discrimination on the grounds of sex (Article 15) and it is also prevalent in various social welfare legislation and judicial pronouncements.

Expressing regrets, Justice Ganguly said that the census, a process that is carried out under an Act of Parliament, is not sensitive to the categorisation and puts the 36 crore (367 million) women engaged in home-making in the category that is derogatory and demeaning.

With words of appreciation for their priceless contribution, the judge said women are generally engaged in home-making, bringing up children, production of goods (food) and services which are not sold in markets.

The judgment reminded the government of its duty by pointing out that despite India being a signatory to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) on July 9, 1993, no law had been made for proper evaluation of the household work by women as homemakers.

The judges said that the services of a woman in a household are very important and monetary value could be fixed by quantifying various jobs such as cooking, taking care of children etc. ‘’It is possible to put monetary value of cooking for family members and it could be assessed in terms of what it would cost to hire a cook or to purchase ready cooked food or by assessing how much money could be earned if the food for the family were to be sold in the locality.’’