In a case concerning removal of female Sarpanch in village, the Supreme Court recently flagged discriminatory attitude that permeates all levels of administration towards women lawmakers [Manisha Ravindra Panpatil v. State of Maharashtra and Others].
A Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan proceeded to emphasise that the matter pertaining to removal of an elected public representative should not be treated so lightly, especially when it concerns women belonging to rural areas.
"...we would like to note that 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," the Court said in its September 27 order.
The Court was of the view that the election of the Manisha Ravindra Panpatil (appellant) as the village sarpanch did not sit well with the residents of the village. It noted 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 nevertheless elected to the office of the Sarpanch.
"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 added.
It noted that the private respondents in all their motivations of defying woman as Sarpanch, orchestrated their efforts towards the removal of the appellant from her duly-elected position.
"Having found no instance of professional misconduct on the part of the appellant that they could etch away at, the private respondents instead embarked on a mission to cast aspersions upon the appellant, by any means necessary. This initiative was undertaken by them, with the intention of securing her removal from public office," the Court noted.
The villagers had moved the Collector praying that Panpatil must be disqualified as 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 from the post of Sarpanch based on bald statements. The decision of Collector was upheld by the Divisional Commissioner and subsequently by the Bombay High Court.
She then approached the Supreme Court against the same.
The apex court set aside the disqualification order and also expressed strong concern with regard to the discriminatory approach adopted by government authorities in summarily removing an elected representative without even verifying the allegations against her.
The Court said that such discriminatory attitude is not unique but is 'unfortunately somewhat of a norm' against woman representatives.
The Court also highlighted that when a country like India is attempting to realize the progressive goal of gender parity and women empowerment across all spheres, such instances of discriminatory attitude towards a gender at the grass-root level cast doubts on the object 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 while taking note that there was no convincing material to substantiate allegations against Panpatil.
Therefore, it set aside the order of her disqualification. While doing so, the Court called for sensitization of government authorities since it is for them to create a congenial atmosphere towards women.
"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," the Court said.
Senior Advocate Sudhanshu S Choudhari, advocates Vatsalya Vigya, Gautami Yadav, Pranjal Chapalgaonkar, Sapna Sinha and Akshay Sinha, appeared for Panpatil.
Advocates Prashant Shrikant Kenjale, Shrirang B Varma, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Bharat Bagla, Sourav Singh, Aditya Krishna, Preet S Phanse and Adarsh Dubey appeared for the respondents.
[Read Judgment]