Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently remarked that it is deeply troubling for a nation aspiring to become an economic powerhouse to witness elected women Sarpanches being ousted on baseless, fabricated, and flimsy grounds—a pattern alarmingly consistent even across geographically diverse regions.

"Administrative authorities, being custodians of actual powers and affluent enough, should lead by example, making efforts to promote women’s empowerment and support female-¬led initiatives in rural and remote areas. Instead of adopting regressive attitudes that discourage women in elected positions, they must foster an environment that encourages their participation and leadership in governance," a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan said.

The court ordered the restoration of appellant Sonam Lakra to the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.

"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. We are convinced that these proceedings were initiated on a flimsy pretext, so as to remove the appellant from office under false and untenable grounds," the bench said.

The bench also directed the state government to pay Rs 1 lakh to the 27-year-old appellant as costs for compelling her to engage in unavoidable litigation. It also ordered the Chief Secretary to conduct an inquiry against the delinquent officers/officials responsible for her harassment.

"It deeply concerns us that there is a recurring pattern of similar cases, where administrative authorities and village panchayat members collude to exact vendettas against female Sarpanches. Such instances highlight a systemic issue of prejudice and discrimination," the court said.

It pointed out that, more recently, in ‘Manisha Ravindra Panpatil Vs The State of Maharashtra,’ decided on September 27, 2024, the court observed that cases involving female Sarpanches often reveal a pervasive pattern of unfair treatment across various levels of administrative functioning.

"Alarmingly, the removal of an elected female representative, especially in rural and remote areas, is frequently treated as a casual matter, wherein disregarding principles of natural justice and democratic processes is treated as a time¬honored tradition. This entrenched bias is particularly disheartening and demands serious introspection and reform," the bench said.

While dealing with the woman Sarpanch's plea, the court noted that she was declared elected with a substantial margin after she contested the election in 2020 with a seemingly strong commitment to improving democracy at the grassroots level.

After her significant efforts, 10 construction projects, such as roads and schools, were sanctioned. A work order was issued on December 16, 2022, mandating a period of three months for completing the works, court highlighted.

Subsequently, the delay in execution was unjustly attributed to the appellant, resulting in her removal from office on January 18, 2024, it pointed out.

"This appears to be a classic case of administrative imperiousness, resulting in the removal of an elected Sarpanch, a young woman dedicated to serving her remote village in Chhattisgarh. Rather than recognizing her commitment and supporting her vigor for the village's development, the authorities unjustly penalised her for baseless and unwarranted reasons," the bench said.

The court further noted that a prima facie examination of the case trajectory revealed a calculated effort by members of the Gram Panchayat, hand in glove with administrative authorities, to obstruct the appellant’s initiatives.

"These individuals sought to undermine her credibility with unfounded accusations of misconduct and, when these stratagems failed, resorted to sabotaging development projects. This concerted campaign ultimately led to her unjust removal as the duly elected Sarpanch. It is cause for concern that at every step, the appellant faced relentless obstacles and received little to no support in her endeavors," the bench said.

The work order for completing the project within three months was served to the appellant only after the stipulated period had elapsed, it said.

"The administrative authorities, with their colonial mindset, have regrettably failed yet again to recognise the fundamental distinction between an elected public representative and a selected public servant," the bench said.

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 on their accountability, the court said.

"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 bench said.

In the case, the court said the High Court ought not to have dismissed the appellant's plea merely on technical grounds, citing the availability of alternative remedies.

"It is trite law that the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, has the vast discretion to entertain a writ petition, even if alternate remedies may exist, especially in cases where the Executive has blatantly and brazenly misused its power to weaken democratic values at the grassroots level," the bench said.

The court finally set aside the order by the Sub Divisional Officer of January 18, 2024, and the High Court's decision of February 29, 2024.

Case Title: Sonam Lakra Vs State of Chhattisgarh & Ors