Deeply Concerning That Administrative Authorities & Village Panchayat Members Collude To Exact Vendettas Against Female Sarpanches: SC
The Supreme Court reinstated a woman Sarpanch and expressed its concern over the recurring pattern of administrative authorities and village panchayat members colluding to exact vendettas against female Sarpanches. The Apex Court observed that such instances highlight a systemic issue of prejudice and discrimination.
The Court also suggested that Administrative Authorities 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.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said, “The administrative authorities, with their colonial mindset, have regrettably failed yet again to recognize the fundamental distinction between an elected public representative and a selected public servant.”
AOR Manish Kumar Gupta represented the Appellant while D.A.G. Vikrant Singh Bais represented the Respondent.
The appellant, a 27 year old woman, with a seemingly strong commitment towards improving democracy at the grassroots level contested the elections in 2020 for the position of Sarpanch of the Sajbahar Gram Panchayat in District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. She was subsequently declared elected with a substantial Marg. She, thereafter, undertook several measures towards development of the village, with the objective of bettering the quality of lives of its inhabitants. The Zila Panchayat, Jashpur sanctioned 10 construction projects for the Sajbahar village under the aegis of the Mahatma Gandhi Rural Industrial Park Scheme (RIPA).
The Chief Executive Officer issued a Work Order mandating completion of the development works within the limited duration of three months and the same was belatedly served to the Gram Panchayat which marked the end of the stipulated period. The delay in execution was unjustly attributed to the appellant, resulting in a chargesheet and her removal from office.
At the outset, the Bench said, “This appears to be a classic case of administrative imperiousness, resulting in the removal of an elected Sarpanch—a young woman dedicated to serving her remote village in Chhattisgarh. Rather than recognizing her commitment and supporting her vigor for the village's development, the authorities unjustly penalized her for baseless and unwarranted reasons.”
After going through the case trajectory, the Bench observed that it was a calculated effort by members of the Gram Panchayat, hand in glove with administrative authorities, to obstruct the appellant’s initiatives. These individuals sought to undermine her credibility with unfounded accusations of misconduct and, when these stratagems failed, resorted to sabotaging development projects.
“It is deeply troubling to witness administrative officials misusing their authority and blatantly disregarding well established principles of natural justice. It is incomprehensible how the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Pharsabahar, issued the order dated 18.01.2024, directing the removal of an elected representative in such a lackadaisical and hasty manner. It is even more so intriguing that a junior official like a Sub Divisional officer has been empowered to determine the fate of an elected Sarpanch”, the Bench said.
According to the Bench, holding the Sarpanch solely accountable for delays, without evidence of her failing in allocating work or performing a duty specific to her elected position, was totally atrocious “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”, it further added.
The Bench also said, “It is trite law that the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution has the vast discretion to entertain a writ petition, even if alternate remedies may exist, especially in cases where the Executive has blatantly and brazenly misused its power to weaken democratic values at the grass root level.”
Thus, quashing the Orders of the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Pharsabahar, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh as well as the High Court, the Bench held that the appellant shall continue to hold the Office of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Jashpur, Chhattisgarh till the completion of her term.
The Bench concluded the matter by directing the respondent-State to pay her costs amounting to Rs 1 lakh within four weeks which would be recovered from the erring officials in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
Cause Title: Sonam Lakra v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 901]
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Manish Kumar Gupta, Advocates Lave Kumar Sharma & Sharadprakash Pandey
Respondent: D.A.G. Vikrant Singh Bais, Advocate Vinayak Sharma, AOR Ravinder Kumar Yadav, Advocates Kshitiz Aggarwal & Kritika Yadav