Elected Representatives Not Subordinate To Bureaucrats: Supreme Court Depracates 'Colonial Mindset' Of Administrative Authorities

In a case concerning the illegal removal of a woman Sarpanch in Chhattisgarh from her office due to the high-handed actions by State government officers, the Supreme Court called out the "colonial mindset" of the administrative authorities.

A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed that elected representatives cannot be treated as subordinates to bureaucrats. There is a distinction between an "elected public representative" and a "selected public servant", the Court reminded.

Election to a public office confers a democratic legitimacy to the public representatives, the Court stated lamenting that the government servants often disregard this fact.

While setting aside the removal of the woman Sarpanch and awarding her a cost of Rs 1 lakh to be payable by the State of Chhattisgarh, the judgment stated :

"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. Invariably, elected representatives like the appellant are often treated as subordinate to bureaucrats compelled to comply with directives that serve to encroach upon their autonomy and impinge their accountability. This misconceived and self­ styled supervisory power is asserted with an intention to equate elected representatives with public servants holding civil posts, completely disregarding the democratic legitimacy conferred by election."

The Court made these remarks while hearing an appeal filed by a woman Sarpanch, who was removed from her office on the ground of delay in the execution of some construction works. She was a 27-year-old woman, who was elected as the Sarpanch of Sajbahar Gram Panchayat in 2020 with a good margin. In 2023, she was removed from office by an order passed under the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. She approached the Supreme Court after the High Court denied her relief.

The Supreme Court found that the delay was not attributable to the Sarpanch and that the proceedings against her were arbitrary and high-handed.

"It is self-evident that construction projects require coordinated efforts from engineers, contractors, timely supply of materials, and are subject to the vagaries of weather etc. Holding the Sarpanch solely accountable for delays, without evidence of her failing in allocating work or performing a duty specific to her elected position, is totally atrocious," the Court observed.

Also from the judgment - Distressing To Witness Discrimination Against Women In Governance When Country Aspires To Be Economic Powerhouse: Supreme Court

Case Title: SONAM LAKRA Versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 7279/2024