You are on page 1of 19

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

TEAM CODE:-

IUMMC-2017
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORGINAL JURISDICTION
(ORDER XXXVIII, S.C.R, 2013)
UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.1 OF 2017
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 2 OF 2017

IN THE MATTER OF:


Steffi Johnson PETITIONER No 1

VERSUS
1. Union Of India RESPONDENT No 1
2. State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT No 2

AND

Save Indian Family Foundation (SIFF) PETITIONER No 2

VERSUS

Union of India & Ors RESPONDENT No1

TEAM CODE: Page 1


MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Index of authorities ............................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

i. Cases ...............................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

ii. Articles ...........................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

iii. Reports ..........................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

iv. StatutesError! Bookmark not defined.

v. Books

2. Statement of Jurisdiction....................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

3. Statement of Facts ..............................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

4. Issues Involved...................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

5. Summary of Arguments .....................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

6. Arguments advanced ..........................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

ISSUE 1: whether the F.I.R ought to be quashed? ............Error! Bookmark not defined.

ISSUE 2: Whether the provisional attachment and freezing order dated 1st june 2016 is
valid? ..................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

ISSUE 3: whether 2(u), 2(v), 3 and 5 of the pmla are arbitrary and violative of articles
14 and 300-a of the constitution and liable to be struck down? ..... Error! Bookmark not
defined.

ISSUE 4 :- whether the property of relatives held as benami property under sec. 3 of Benami
Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988?

7. Prayer .................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

TEAM CODE: Page 2


MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

1. CASES
2. ARITCLES
3. REPORTS
4. STATUES
5. BOOKS

TEAM CODE: Page 3


MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

Petitioner No. 1
1. The Petitioner No.1 has approached the Jurisdiction of the Honble Supreme Court of
India under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, which allows the Supreme Court to
enforce the constitutional remedies and gives the Supreme Court Original Jurisdiction to
issue writ in the form of Mandamus.
2. The jurisdiction of the Honble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India is invoked praying from the Honble Court for a direction against Union of India
seeking a writ or order or direction in the nature of Mandamus to Government of
Maharashtra (Respondent No. 2) for the establishment of an enforcement authority for
effective implementation of the impugned Compulsory payment of Honorarium to
Housewives Act (CHH). This petition is filed by the petitioner no 1 in her individual
capacity.
3. The petitioner has not approached any other court for the relief claimed in the petition.

Petitioner No. 2
1. The Petitioner No. 2 has approached the Jurisdiction of the Honble Supreme Court of
India under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, which allows the Supreme Court to
enforce the constitutional remedies.
2. The Petitioner No. 2 has approached the Jurisdiction of the Honble Supreme Court of
India under Article 32 of the Constitution of India which empowers the Supreme Court
under its Original Jurisdiction to hear the matters involving infringement of fundamental
rights by the state.
3. The jurisdiction of the Honble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India is invoked seeking from the Honble Court to make any order including even
declaratory order (Constitutionally invalidating the impugned Act), or give any direction,
as may appear to it to be necessary to give proper relief to the Petitioner No. 2.
4. The petitioner has not approached any other court for the relief claimed in the petition.
No representation has been filed with any authority since the constitutional validity of a
statute is under challenge and relief claimed can only be granted by this Honble Court.

TEAM CODE: Page 4


MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

STATEMENT OF FATCS

1. Steffi Johnson, a Christian by birth and graduate from the prestigious National Law
School in India and she worked as legal consultant at mylegal consultant. Ishaan, a Hindu
by birth and , also a pass out of the same law school works as a tax lawyer with a reputed
tax firm based in Mumbai. Both of them were sweet couple from their college days and
also both was married under Special Marriage Act, 1954.
2. After marriage, she moved into her husbands house who has been living with his father
and mother. Ishaans father was retired army personnel who currently runs a charitable
old age home and his mother was housewife. She always help them out with their works
respectively after managing some time out of her busy schedule.
3. Steffi decided to quit her well paid job for IVF treatment. After that she had a pair of
twins. During this time Steffis mother in law had a cardiac arrest and eventually
paralysed her body and was bed-ridden.
4. She do not have any helping hands because always Ishaan , who being a tax lawyer was
extremely pre-occupied with GST work and often came home late or stayed out of town.
Worse still, she had gone low on finances as all her savings were spent on the IVF
treatment. To better her position, she started going to a nearby school as a French tutor
occasionally and got a meagre amount in return.
5. One the fine morning she come across to article in newspaper which is taking about that
an act name as Compulsory payment of Honorarium to Housewives Act (CHH) which
has passed by Indian parliamentary. After making of research, she found that this act was
recently pass by parliament with an objective of providing some rights to housewives.
6. She wants to avail some rights from this act, so she approached to the Supreme Court
seeking directions from the Court to provide for establishment of an enforcement
authority for effective implementation of the Act and also pleaded for insertion of penalty
clause in the act in case of default and ask her husband to pay her the honorarium that she
is entitled to under the Act.
7. This case gets more popularity in media because this type of case first time happened in
the history of India and get more response from public in her favour. Due to this, Ishaan

TEAM CODE: Page 5


MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

approached to Save Indian Family Foundation for help. Save Indian Family Foundation
(SIFF) is a voluntary non-Governmental association of married men that aims at ending
discrimination of men and male disposability. SIFF files a petition before the Apex Court
challenging the constitutionality of the Act and its applicability to Steffi.

TEAM CODE: Page 6


MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

ISSUE INVOLVED

Petitioner No. 1

1. Whether or not the petition filed by petitioner no. 1 is maintainable in the Honble
Supreme Court of India?
2. Whether or not the Supreme Court can direct to Union Legislature?

Petitioner No. 2

1. Whether or not the CHH is constitutionally valid?

TEAM CODE: Page 7


MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Petitioner No. 1

1. Whether or not the petition filed by petitioner no. 1 is maintainable in the Honble
Supreme Court of India?

Petitioner-1 submitted that the petition filed by her is maintainable because there is an
infringement of fundamental rights. Due to not proper implementation of Act by legislature.
Petitioner-1 submitted that her rights fundamental right is violating which comes under the
preview of Art. 21 of the constitution. Therefore, Petitioner-1 submitted that issuing of writ
of madmamus by Supreme Court for giving direction to establishment of Authority.

2. Whether or not the Supreme Court can direct to Union Legislature?

Petitioner No. 2

1. Whether or not the CHH is constitutionally valid?

TEAM CODE: Page 8


MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

ARUGEMENTS ADVANCE

Petitioner No. 1

Whether or not the petition filed by petitioner no. 1 is maintainable in the


Honble Supreme Court of India?

1.1 Good governance is the basic feature of the Constitution.

The democratic and representative character of governance has been treated to be a basic feature
of the Constitution.1 Governance is a concept of wide import.2 The intent of constitutional
scheme providing for limitations on the availability of and exercise of power by the state, on the
discharge of obligation and duties by the state and its functionaries instrumentalities is to govern
in terms of Constitution. The Honble Courts may consider it appropriate to permit the petition in
the following and similar circumstances, treating it as an instance of Failure of Good
Governance.

Instances of Court intervention to ensure good governance

Non implementation or non enforcement of law per se (by not extending law or not taking up
measures for effectuating the law such as non-framing of subordinate authorizes; not setting up
or inadequate setting up of dispute resolution bodies; not taking mandatory measures under the
law or lack of proper supervision or control) leads to injury or damage to a class, section or
group of citizens,3 which is clearly depicted in the present matter.

Where a law confers new set of rights or expands existing set of rights, the remedial process for
resolution of disputes under the said law are also provided for (which is absent in the present
matter). Lack of adequate provision for dispute resolution under such legislation would be clear
case of impinging upon the administration of justice.

1
Keshavananada Bharti v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225
2
Governance under a constitution is , power, authority, and their distribution; obligation, duties law making,
planning, social order, security, administration of justice, and acting in protection and promotion of fundamental
freedoms.
3
Express Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1959 SC 578.

TEAM CODE: Page 9


MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

When the law provides for the taking of steps or measures for effective implementation of the
legislation, or even for the application of the legislation, absence of such measures may also be
constitutional wrongs involving article 14 dimensions.4 These can be subjected to correction by
judicial scrutiny. The Courts may also issue appropriate writs or orders to enforce statutory
duties, towards ensuring actual implementation of the law or the Constitution.5

The Constitution also treats certain governmental action as an infringement of Art.14 and Art.21
when the inadequacy in the establishment of dispute resolution institution or bodies affects
access to justice.6 This would be so, as mere enactment of legislation without enabling to justice
fully and effectively, will be considered opposed to public interest.7

As it can be seen that the present matter is an instance of failure of Good Governance, it is
humbly submitted that Petitioner No. 1 has the right to move to the Supreme Court for
enforcement of Good Governance which is the basic feature of the Constitution.

1.2 Failure of Good Governance lead to the infringement of Article 21- The right to
economic empowerment

The foundation of remedies that can be pursued before the Courts conferred with Constitutional
jurisdiction lies in the nexus between rights guaranteed under the Constitution and the duties
and obligation of the State to act in consonance with those rights.8

A right is now generally understood as an interest protected by law.9 The constitutional


scheme envisages certain rights as basic human rights, which constitute the essence and contours
of human personality.10

The jurisprudence of Fundamental Rights is essentially the Corpus of statements of protection


against invasion by the State and its instrumentalities.11 Fundamental Rights are those rights
which the state enforces against itself.12

4
Centre for Enquiry into Health V. UOI, (2001) 5 SCC 577.
5
A.K. Roy V. UOI, AIR 1982 SC 710.
6
Supreme Court Advocates-on records Association V. UOI, (1993) 4 SCC 441.
7
Statutory machinery under the Act found to be inefficacious; Bharat Kala Bhandarv. Dhamangaon Municipality,
(1965) 3 SCR 499; See observations in Ram and Shyam v. State of Haryana, AIR 1985 SC 1147.
8
Keshavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225.
9
P.J. Fitzerald, Salmond on Jurisprudence, 217 (Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., 12th Ed., 1996
10
The judgments in regard to Article 21: See Cha,eli Singh v. State of Uttar Prsdesh, (1996) 2 SCC 549

TEAM CODE: Page 10


MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

The right to life guaranteed under the Constitution is a wholesome concept comprehending all
facets of freedom, welfare and excellence. It is more than a mere animal existence. It includes
the right to live with human dignity.13

Right to life includes means of livelihood and the right to dignity, right against demeaning
restrictions on personhood,14 right to health, right to portable water, right to pollution free
environment and social justice are all comprehended under this guarantee.15 The jurisprudence of
personhood or philosophy of the right to life enlarges its sweep to encompass personality in its
full blossom. In this same interpretation on right to life, the Honble Supreme Court has in the
case of Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. v. Reserve Bank of India16held that
Right to life enshrined in Art.21 connotes to the Right to Economic Empowerment which is thus
a fundamental right.17 Such an economic empowerment right helps a person to live his life with
dignity in the society.

In the present matter the Act gives the housewives this economic empowerment right to live their
life with dignity which is being infringed by the State due to failure of Good Governance.

Article 21 has been defined in its widest amplitude including right to dignity. It is a fountain
head of the right to human dignity. The Supreme Court has given guideline in the case of
Nilabati Behera v. State of Orrisa18 that the state has ensured that the right to life is not to be
violated by any public authority and public institution. Further Supreme Court has held that it is
to be the primary duty of the state to ensure the protection of human dignity through proper
statutes and by creation of suitable and adequate mechanisms.19

The impugned Act in the present matter guarantees to provide for a compulsory honorarium
payable to housewives in recognition of their work and for matters connected therewith or

11
State of West Bengal v. Subodh Gopal Bose, (1954) SCR 587, para 9.
12
Golaknath, I.C. v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1643.
13
See Francis Coralie Mullin v. the Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 746, para 3
14
Hand cuffing: Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1980 SC 1535.
15
Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC 42; Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of
India, (1984) 3 SCC 161.

16
(1992) 2 SCC 343.
17
D.K Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd., (1993) 3 SCC 259; C.E.S.C Ltd. v. Subash Chandra Bose, (1992) 1 SCC 441.
18
AIR 1993 SC 1960
19
Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 311

TEAM CODE: Page 11


MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

incidental thereto. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the word housewife as a married
woman whose main occupation is caring for her family and running the household. Under the
status quo, housewives in most countries of the world perform unpaid labour. According to the
OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, an international body
helping governments tackle the economic, social and governance challenges of a globalized
economy), unpaid work is the production of goods and services that are not sold in the market.
The difference between unpaid work and leisure is determined by what is known as the third
person criterion- if a third person would have to be paid for performing an activity, then that
activity constitutes unpaid labour. For example, cooking a meal is unpaid work whereas
watching a movie is leisure.20

Work entails payment

In Labour Markets, people sell their services in exchange for money. They earn fixed wages on a
daily, weekly or monthly basis. Clearly, a housewife renders economic services (fulfilling the
requirement of the third person criterion that entitle her to economic remuneration. The work
at home has been recognized as an economic activity that creates added value and produces
social welfare and wealth. This recognition has been given by the Venezuelan Government
under Article 8821 of the Constitution of Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, 1999. In fact, a UK-
based site conducted an online survey to understand the different role by a housewife and the
wage she could ideally earn. After adding up the average wages received by professionals in the
market for performing the same jobs, the researcher concluded that the annual worth of an
individual housewife in the UK is 29,771.56 Euros.22

Economic Empowerment

Giving a housewife a salary translates into giving her access to a certain amount of money over
which she has exclusive control. Thus empowered, she can participate in taking money related
decisions within the household as well as outside it. She can plan her finances and can make

20
Cooking, Caring and Volunteering: Unpaid Work Around the World: A paper by Veerle Miranda, published in
OECD iLibrary.
21
The State guarantees the equality and equitable treatment of men and women in the exercise of the right to
work. The State recognizes work at home as an economic activity that creates added value and produces social
welfare and wealth. Housewives are entitled to Social Security in accordance with law.
22
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2012/20120905/main6.htm; http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7252504.stm

TEAM CODE: Page 12


MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

investments, spend at will, send money into insurance and savings and even provide for future
contingencies like divorce. In the Indian context, a woman is expected to perform duties within
the household while her husband is the breadwinner of the family.23 Women without their own
financial resources have limited choices when it comes to making economic decision.
Housewives will no longer be victims of economic abuse if they are rewarded monetarily for
their efforts. Thus such an Act like Compulsory payment of Honorarium to Housewives gives
the housewives a right to economic empowerment which is a fundamental right, the infringement
of which can be remedies by this Honble court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

It is humbly submitted that the Petitioner No. 1 is entitled to the Right to Economic
Empowerment to live her life with Dignity which is infringed due to Failure of Good
Governance. Therefore in the light of the above arguments petitioner has the right to move to the
Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

1.3 Enforcement of Writ of Mandamus

Art. 32(2) confers the power on the court in its widest terms. it is not confined to issuing the
high prerogative writs, but it is much and includes within its matrix power to issue any
direction, order or writs may be appropriate for enforcement of the fundamental right in
question.24

1.4 No Alternate Remedy Available.

It is contended that judiciary is an extension of rights, for it is the courts that would give the
rights force.25 Herein, the petitioner is seeking to enforce her fundamental right and not to
invalidate the impugned Act as the impugned Act here is not violating the fundamental right but
its non enforcement is, which is an instance of failure of Good Governance. It is urged to the
honble court to fill the vaccum in the impugned statute.

23
Report by International Labour Organization on Status of Women in India;
http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=oCCoQFjAA&url=http%d.b
mk
24
Ibid.
25
Austin, Granville, The Indian constitution- cornerstone of the nations, Pg. 12, 2016.

TEAM CODE: Page 13


MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

In the matter of Vineet Narain v. Union of India, the Supreme Court has ruled that ample
powers are conferred on the Court under Arts. 32, 141, 142, 144 to issue necessary directions to
fill the vaccum till either the legislature steps in to cover the gap or discharge its role. Similarly
in the Vishakha case, the Supreme Court has emphasized that it is the duty of the executive to fill
the vacuum by executive orders because its field is coterminous with that of the legislature and
where there is inaction even by the executive, for whatever reason, the judiciary must step in, in
exercise of its constitutional obligations under the aforesaid provisions to provide a solution till
such time as the legislature acts to perform its role by enacting proper legislation to cover the
field. Herein, due to the unavailability of the necessary clauses for the proper implementation of
the enacted legislation, the petitioner has approached the honble court seeking its
implementation.

Under the present matter the Petitioner No 1 is seeking the same remedy to fill the gap in the
impugned statute for creating a penalty clause which only this Honble Court has the power to do
so under Art. 142. Since there is an absence of any statutory forum or tribunal which would act
as a redressal mechanism for the aggrieved citizens, the petitioner is approaching the SC as when
there is no such remedy available in the statute the same can be enforced by approaching the
remedy available under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India.26

26
Seth Chand Ratan v. Pandit Durga Prasad, (2003) 5 SCC 399

TEAM CODE: Page 14


MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

It is humbly submitted before that court by petitioner-1 states that there is no enforcement of
authorities which must be establish by state legislature within the three month after the
commencement of act. Due to which, none of the housewives can claim for honorarium payment
for their work and services done at matrimonial home. There is directly infringement of Art. 21
of the constitution which is fundamental right, so she has right to move to SC for the
enforcement of their rights.

Petitioner No.2

Whether or not the CHH is constitutionally valid?

Petitioner No. 2 has right of access to the Supreme Court under article 32 which is fundamental
rights itself27 read with article 13 of constitution. Fundamental rights are enforceable and any law
inconsistent with fundamental rights is void. Article 13 of constitution confers a power and
imposes duty and obligation on the courts to declare a law void if it is inconsistent with
fundamental right.28 This is the role of sentinel on the qui vive placed on the Supreme Court by
the Constitution of India. Article 13 laid down ground for unconstitutionality of act or legislation
as follows:-

Those legislation or act inconsistent with the fundamental right.29


A law to be valid when it fulfills all constitutional norms.

Therefore in the present case, there is violation of fundamental rights. There is violation of
Art.14 of Constitution which speaks about right to equality. Neither Parliament nor any state
legislature can transgress the principle of equality. This principle has been recently reiterated by
the Supreme Court in Badappanavar30 case in the following words:

27
Bodhisattwa v. Subhra Chakraborty, AIR 1996 SC 922, 926.
28
State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democractic Rights, AIR 2010 SC 1476 (1490).
29
Supra, Chs. XXI, XXIV and XXVI.
30
M.G. Badappanavar v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2001 SC 260, at 264

TEAM CODE: Page 15


MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

Equality is a basic feature of the Constitution of India and any treatment of equals
unequally or unequal as equals will be violation of basic structure of the Constitution of India.

This means that Article 14 declares that the State shall not deny to any person equality before
the law or equal protection of law within the territory of India.. thus article 14 uses the two
expressions equality before law and equal protection of law. Equality before law aims at
implying the absence of any special privilege by reason of birth, sex, religion etc in favor of
individuals and the equal subject of all the classes to the ordinary law. Equal protection of Law
aims at equality of treatment in equal circumstances.

The equal protection of laws guaranteed by Article 14 does not mean that all laws must be
general in character. It does not mean that the same laws should apply to all persons. It does not
attainment or circumstances in the same position. The varying need of different classes of person
often requires separate treatment. From the very nature of society there should be different laws
in different places and the legitimately control the policy and enacts laws in the best interest of
the safety and security of the state. In fact identical treatment in unequal circumstances would
amount to inequality.

1.1 Fail reasonable classification test

Right to equality which has been enshrined as a fundamental right in the constitution under
Art.14 lays down the principle that no person will be discriminated and every person will be
given equal protection of law. When any impugned rule or statutory provision is assailed on the
ground that it contravenes Art. 14, its validity can be sustained if two tests are satisfied.31

a) The first test is that the classification on which it is founded must be based on an intelligible
differentia which distinguishes persons or things grouped together from others left out of the
group.32

b) The second test is that the differentia in question must have a reasonable relation to the object
sought to be achieved by the rule or statutory provision in question

31
State of Mysore V. P.Narsinga Rao
32
State of West Bengal v Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952) SCR 284; Javed v State of Haryana (2003) 8 SCC 369

TEAM CODE: Page 16


MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

In other words there must be some rational nexus between the basis of classification and the
object intended to be achieved by the statute or the rule33.

In the matter of Smt. Suman Shukla v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others 34, classification
of Guruji as per the circular was held invalid because it was creating two classes of Guruji for
payment of honorarium without any justification. The classes created were on the basis of
intelligible diffrentia.

Application of first test

In present case, the Act only speaks about those housewives who do not have regular source
income as envisaged in Section 2 of the impugned Act but this Act does not provide rational
classification of housewives such as those housewives belonging to a rich family who hire
servants or maid for household work or those housewives belonging to a poor family, who
employ themselves for doing the same. This act treats unequal as equals. Here the subject
housewives is itself not reasonably classified.

The left out are male members of the society who also do household work in the country like
India. This section of the society should also get honorarium if the same is being provided to the
housewives. This is a clear case of gender discrimination as per Art. 14 read with Art. 15 (1)35.

Application of second test

It is clearly mentioned in the act that a compulsory honorarium payable to housewives in


recognition of their work and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. This
means that any housewives can claim compulsory honorarium that do not have regular source of
income whether they do the household work or not. By this the very object of the impugned Act
to recognize the work of the housewives is not being fulfilled. There is no rational nexus
between the basis of classification and the object intended to be achieved by the impugned
statute.

33
Kathi Raning Rawat v State of Saurasthra 1952 SC AIR 123
34
Writ Petition No.11226/2009
35

TEAM CODE: Page 17


MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

Hence after the application of the two tests, the Act failed to satisfy both the requirements of the
Art 14 which is a clear infringement of fundamental right of the petitioner concerned. It is
submitted before the court that the said Act according to Article 13 of the Constitution should be
held unconstitutional and be struck down.

1.2 Commercializing housework

The tasks that housewives perform do not adhere to fixed job descriptions and cannot be
generalized across the millions of diverse households that exist in a country like India 36. Division
of labour within different homes is not watertight- in some families, the grandparents may take
care of the children and the husband might do the cooking.

Besides, there are some economic activities that do not entail compensation due to the existence
of non-monetary or indirect rewards. This is the biggest difference between providing services
within the household and in the market.

A housewife acts as the support system without which her household cannot function smoothly.
It is thanks to her efforts that her husband is able to go to work and earn wages. She is thus
indirectly paid a salary by virtue of her husband earning one. Also, a lot of the work she does is
of her own accord such as cooking food or taking care of her children. This means that she
receives some form of non-financial remuneration such as a sense of satisfaction or pleasure that
motivates her to continue performing these tasks voluntarily. There is no expectation of
quantitative returns; which implies that attaching a price tag to housework is actually demeaning
and belittles the priceless contribution of housewives.

Determining the salary of a housewife by averaging the salaries she would earn by providing
each of her services in the market equates a housewifes worth with that of a maid, nanny or
nurse. Society would now treat housewives with even more contempt than before making them
nothing but exalted servants. Wages can never reward the love and affection that sets the efforts
of housewives apart from services provided by domestic help.

Some economic activities are kept out of GDP estimation for a reason. Charity, a voluntary act of
providing services to those in need is an example of an activity that is not taken into account

36
http://www.care2.com/causes/husbands-to-pay-wives-for-doing-household-chores-ingenius-or-insulting.html

TEAM CODE: Page 18


MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

while estimating the GDP of a country.37 Similarly, housework performed voluntarily not just by
housewives, but also by other members of the family (such as in the earlier example of
grandparents looking after their grandchildren), is traditionally excluded from GDP calculations.

The Indian government could treat salaries given to housewives as an easy way to record
phenomenal levels of growth and reduced unemployment at the national level. Then, in the
global economic arena, India would be on par with many developed countries. This would lead
to complacency and a reduced focus on the planning and implementation of development
policies that benefit society and boost a countrys GDP.38

37
Introductory Macroeconomics (NCERT Textbook, Class XII)
38
http://www.theunrealtimes.com/2012/09/14/upa-economic-miracle-boosts-gdp-by-30-by-valuing-the-work-of-
the-unpaid-indian-housewife/

TEAM CODE: Page 19