Removal Of Elected Public Representative Should Not Be Treated Lightly, Especially Concerning Rural Women: SC Sets Aside Disqualification Of Female Sarpanch
The Supreme Court set aside the disqualification of a female Sarpanch reiterating 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.
The Court held that the concerned authorities needed to sensitise themselves and work towards creating a more congenial atmosphere where women could prove their worth by rendering their services as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat.
A Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held, “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. 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.”
Senior Advocate Sudhanshu S. Choudhari represented the appellant, while AOR Prashant Shrikant Kenjale appeared for the respondents.
After the appellant was elected as a Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, the respondents sought her disqualification on the ground that the appellant was allegedly residing with her mother-in-law in a house erected upon government land.
However, without appropriately verifying the factual issues, the concerned Collector passed an order disqualifying the appellant from continuing as Sarpanch.
The Supreme Court stated that this was a classic case where the residents of the village could not reconcile with the fact that the appellant, being a woman, was 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,” the Court remarked.
“This seems to us 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,” the Court noted.
The Bench pointed out that it was “patently obvious” that the primary motivations which led the respondents to initiate their “orchestrated efforts” towards the removal of the appellant, from her duly elected position were “aided by the mechanical and summary orders passed by government authorities.”
The Court reiterated, “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.”
Consequently, the Court held, “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.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal.
Cause Title: Manisha Ravindra Panpatil v. The State Of Maharashtra & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 762)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Sudhanshu S. Choudhari; AOR Vatsalya Vigya; Advocates Gautami Yadav, Pranjal Chapalgaonkar, Sapna Sinha and Akshay Sinha
Respondents: AOR Prashant Shrikant Kenjale and Aaditya Aniruddha Pande; Advocates Shrirang B. Varma, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Bharat Bagla, Sourav Singh, Aditya Krishna, Preet S. Phanse and Adarsh Dubey
