New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said it is worrying when elected women representatives in panchayat get removed through the casual approach and such instances cast a heavy shadow, when the country is attempting to realise the progressive goal of gender parity and women empowerment across all spheres.
A bench comprising justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan said this seems a classic case where the residents of the village could not reconcile with the fact that the appellant, being a woman, was nevertheless elected to the office of the Sarpanch of their village.
“They were perhaps further unable to come to terms with the reality that a female Sarpanch would make decisions on their behalf de jure and that they would have to abide by her directions”, said the bench, in an order passed on September 27.
The bench said this is all the more concerning when the representative in question is a woman and elected in the reservation quota, thereby indicating a systemic pattern of prejudicial treatment, permeating through all levels of administrative functioning.
The bench stressed that this scenario gets further exacerbated when the country is attempting realize the progressive goal of gender parity and women empowerment across all spheres, including public offices and most importantly adequate women representative in the elected bodies, "such instances at the grass-root level cast a heavy shadow on any headway that we may have achieved".
Setting aside the disqualification of a woman Sarpanch in Nashik, the bench said the concerned authorities need to sensitize themselves and work towards creating a more congenial atmosphere where women, such as the appellant, can prove their worth by rendering their services as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat.
“All that we would like to reiterate is that the matter of removal of an elected public representative should not be treated so lightly, especially when it concerns women belonging to rural areas. It must be acknowledged that these women who succeed in occupying such public offices, do so only after significant struggle”, said the bench.
The apex court said it is patently obvious that these were the primary motivations which led the private respondents to initiate their orchestrated efforts towards the removal of the appellant, from her duly elected position. “Having found no instance of professional misconduct on the part of the appellant that they could etch away at, the private respondents instead embarked on a mission to cast aspersions upon the appellant, by any means necessary. This initiative was undertaken by them, with the intention of securing her removal from public office”, said the bench.
Appellant Manisha Ravindra Panpatil, was elected as Sarpanch in February, 2021. She was disqualified by the district collector on the allegation that she was living with her mother-in-law in a house built upon government land. The order was upheld by the divisional commissioner and her plea was also dismissed by the high court.
The appellant denied residing in that particular dwelling. The appellant said she lived separately with her husband and children in a rented accommodation and the concerned dwelling was in such a dilapidated condition that it could not be inhabited.
The bench said there is nothing on record to suggest that any objection of the appellant’s family having encroached upon government land was ever raised when she filed her nomination papers.
The bench said that though the private respondents grasped at straws in their bid to evict the appellant from her position, their cause was perhaps aided by the mechanical and summary orders passed by government authorities, at various levels. “These orders were passed in a lackadaisical manner, without making any effort towards conducting a fact-finding exercise, so as to confirm whether the allegations levied by the private respondents were sufficiently made out”, said the bench.
The bench said, at this juncture, “we would like to note that the vagaries of the present factual matrix is far from unique and is unfortunately somewhat of a norm”.
“While there is no doubt in our mind that the private respondents may have operated in a discriminatory manner, what is more worrying is the casual approach adopted by government authorities in summarily removing an elected representative”, said the bench.
The bench said it sees no credible and convincing material on record to substantiate the private respondents’ allegations of encroachment of government land by the appellant before or post her election as Sarpanch.
“In our considered view, the nature of allegations and the consequential punishment awarded to the appellant, namely, her removal from the office of Sarpanch, is highly disproportionate”, said the bench, allowing her appeal.
“The impugned order dated August 3, 2023, passed by the High Court is set aside. The appellant, in whose favour the stay had already been granted, shall be allowed to continue and perform the duties of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat till the completion of her tenure”, said the bench.
Read more
