'Acknowledge Women's Struggles In Occupying Public Offices' : Supreme Court Flags Discriminatory Attitude Towards Women Representatives

While granting relief to a female Sarpach of a village who was disqualified on technical grounds, the Supreme Court raised concerns about the discriminatory attitudes which permeate through all levels of administration towards women representatives.

The Court observed that the matter related to the removal of an elected representative should not be taken lightly, especially when it concerns women in rural areas.

“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 court said.

The Court opined that this was a classic case where the village residents of Gram Panchayat, Vichkheda situated in Jalgaon District of Maharashtra found it difficult to accept that the appellant, a woman, had been elected as their Sarpanch. They likely found it even harder to come to terms with the fact that a female Sarpanch would have the authority to make decisions on their behalf and that they would be required to follow her directives.

To remove the appellant from Sarpanch's post, an orchestrated effort has been made by the villagers by filing a disqualification plea before the Collector urging that she was allegedly residing with her mother-in-law in a house erected upon government land.

The Collector without verifying the allegations, disqualified the appellant based on bald statements. The Collector's decision was upheld by the Divisional Commissioner, and subsequently by the High Court.

Setting aside the impugned decision, the bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan expressed concerns over the discriminatory action of the authorities and the casual approach adopted by government authorities in summarily removing an elected representative without verifying the allegations.

The Court said that instances like the present case, indicating discriminatory treatment towards women representatives, were "unfortunately a norm."

The court remarked that even when the country is attempting to realize the progressive goal towards gender parity and woman empowerment, such biased and discriminatory actions cast doubt over the goal sought to be achieved.

“This scenario gets further exacerbated when we as a country are 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.”, the court observed.

“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.”, the court held.

"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.

In this vein, 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."

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vatsalya Vigya, AOR Ms. Gautami Yadav, Adv. Ms. Pranjal Chapalgaonkar, Adv. Ms. Sapna Sinha, Adv. Mr. Akshay Sinha, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Prashant Shrikant Kenjale, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv.

Case Title: MANISHA RAVINDRA PANPATIL VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 783

Click here to read/download the order