Rape Is Not Action Adversely Affecting Dignity Of Women U/s. 40 Of M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam: Madhya Pradesh HC
|The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that ‘misconduct’ under Section 40 of M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 involving action adversely affecting the dignity of women has attributes different than the commission of the offence of rape.
The Court held that once Section 39 of Act 1993 deals in respect of commission of certain offences which includes the offence of rape which is against a woman, then it means Section 40 of Act 1993 contemplated the concept of 'Misconduct' (by way of undermining the dignity of a woman) quite distinct from Section 39 of Act 1993.
The Court was hearing a Writ Appeal preferred under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 after he was aggrieved by the decision in an earlier Writ Petition.
The bench of Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Hirdesh observed, “If a Sarpanch commits an offence as prescribed under Section 39 of Act 1993, then he would certainly be proceeded as per the provision of Section 39 of Act 1993. Once the Section 39 of Act 1993 deals in respect of commission of certain offences which includes offence of rape which is against a woman, then it means Section 40 of Act 1993 contemplated the concept of 'Misconduct' (by way of undermining the dignity of a woman) quite distinct from Section 39 of Act 1993 or what counsel for the appellant has argued. This misconduct is having attributes something different than commission of offence of rape.”
Advocate Siddharth Sharma appeared for the Appellant and Advocate DP Singh appeared for the Respondent.
It is the case of the Petitioner that the respondent being Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat is a fit person to be removed under Section 40 of M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 because as per Section 40 (1) Explanation (a) (iii) has caused misconduct by undermining the dignity of a woman.
The Court perused Section 40 of the Act and noted that one of the grounds for removal is misconduct and in explanation, one of the attributes of misconduct is undermining the dignity of a woman.
The Court observed, “If the legislative intent would have been to incorporate alleged commission of rape as an attempt to be included in the Section 40 of Act 1993 also, then Section 39 of Act 1993 would not have been framed or at least offence under Section 376 of IPC would not have been included in the enactment. Leglative intent appears to be clear.”
“Sections 39 and 40 of Act 1993 move in two distinct spheres”, the Court added.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Appeal.