Supreme Court directs Chhattisgarh to pay ₹1 lakh to woman sarpanch for harassment

The Supreme Court on Thursday took exception to the State of Chhattisgarh opposing a woman sarpanch's plea for closure of proceedings against her over alleged delay in construction work [Sonam Lakra v State of Chhattisgarh and ors].

A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan directed the State government to reinstate Sonam Lakra and pay her ₹1 lakh as compensation for the harassment and for being forced to step down from the Sarpanch post.

"This is a case of high handedness in removing an elected sarpanch woman who thought of serving her village in a remote area of Chhattisgarh, Instead of admiring her commitments or extending the helping hand, what the appellant intended to do for her village, she has been wronged for absolutely unjustified reasons," it observed.

The Bench explained that construction work needs engineers, contractors, timely supply of labour, and this is not something for which a sarpanch can be held if there had been a delay.

"How can sarpanch be held liable for delay unless there is delay in allocation of work or delay in specific duty of elected body? Thus, we hold that initiation of proceedings was a lame excuse and she was removed on false pretext. She will continue to hold office of sarpanch till the end of her term ... appellant has been harassed and subjected to avoidable litigation," the Court said.

It directed that the compensation amount be released within a week and recovered from the State officers responsible.

"Do not force us to say something," Justice Kant repeatedly remarked in response to interruptions by the counsel for Chhattisgarh.

The appellant, a 27-year-old woman, successfully contested the election of sarpanch of the Sajbahar Gram Panchayat.

The panchayat was later assigned several development works including ten construction projects for roads.

The sarpanch ended up facing allegations of delay in completing the construction work and a show-cause notice was issued to her on May 26 last year.

She denied the allegations and tendered an explanation but was removed from her position in January 2024.

The High Court refused to give her any relief against the proceedings or termination from service, prompting her to move the Supreme Court.