New Delhi: A 27-year-old woman sarpanch fought a strenuous legal battle and regressive attitudes, which discourage women in elected positions. Recognising her commitment and vigour for the village's development, the Supreme Court restored the appellant to her post and directed the state government to pay Rs one lakh as the cost for compelling her to engage in unavoidable litigation.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan said she was removed on grounds totally atrocious and flimsy. The bench said administrative authorities, being custodians of actual powers and affluent enough, should lead by example, making efforts to promote women's empowerment and support female-led initiatives in rural and remote areas.
"Instead of adopting regressive attitudes that discourage women in elected positions, they must foster an environment that encourages their participation and leadership in governance," said the bench.
The apex court took an exception to the manner in which appellant Sonam Lakra was removed from the post of sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, by the Sub Divisional Officer on flimsy grounds of failing to execute work orders within three months.
The bench set aside the Chhattisgarh High Court order, which declined her any relief, and also ordered the chief secretary to conduct an inquiry against the delinquent officers responsible for her harassment.
"It deeply concerns us that there is a recurring pattern of similar cases, where administrative authorities and village panchayat members collude to exact vendettas against female Sarpanches. Such instances highlight a systemic issue of prejudice and discrimination," said the bench, in its order delivered on November 14.
The top court said the removal of an elected female representative, especially in rural and remote areas, is frequently treated as a casual matter, wherein disregarding principles of natural justice and democratic processes is treated as a time-honored tradition. "This entrenched bias is particularly disheartening and demands serious introspection and reform," the bench said.
The appellant contested the elections in 2020 for the position of Sarpanch of the Sajbahar Gram Panchayat in District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, the village that she belongs to. She was subsequently declared elected with a substantial margin.
The bench noted that 10 construction projects were sanctioned and a work order was issued on December 16, 2022, mandating three-months period for completion.
However, the delay in execution was unjustly attributed to her, which resulted in her removal from office on January 18, 2024. The apex court said the work order for completing the project was served to the appellant only after the stipulated period had elapsed.
"This appears to be a classic case of administrative imperiousness...the authorities unjustly penalised her for baseless and unwarranted reasons," the bench said.
The apex court said the administrative authorities, with their colonial mindset, have regrettably failed yet again to recognise the fundamental distinction between an elected public representative and a selected public servant.
