Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said the matter of removal of an elected public representative should not be treated lightly, especially when it concerns women belonging to rural areas as these women who succeed in occupying such public offices, do so only after significant struggle.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan thus allowed an appeal by Manisha Ravindra Panpatil and held her removal from the office of Sarpanch, as highly disproportionate, for having been done through mechanical and summary orders passed by government authorities in a lackadaisical manner without any fact finding exercise.

"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 bench said.

"This scenario gets further exacerbated when we as a country are attempting realise 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," it added.

Panpatil was an elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Vichkheda situated in Jalgaon District of Maharashtra. She contested in the panchayat elections and won in February, 2021. 

Out of a dispute, her disqualification was sought on the ground that she was allegedly residing with her mother-in-law in a house erected upon government land. She had vehemently contended that she does not reside in that particular dwelling, and that she lives separately with her husband and children in a rented accommodation. 

Without appropriately verifying the factual issues and on the basis of bald statements, the concerned Collector passed an order disqualifying the appellant from continuing as Sarpanch. This order was thereafter confirmed by the Divisional Commissioner.

Subsequently, the High Court by its impugned order on August 3, 2023, dismissed Panpatil's writ petition against the Commissioner’s order on a technical ground, thus putting a seal of approval on her removal from office. 

Making strong observations, top court's bench has said, "This seems to us 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 of their village. 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 found it patently obvious that these were the primary motivations which led the private respondents to initiate their orchestrated 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," top court noted.

It further found no credible and convincing material on record to substantiate the private respondents’ allegations of encroachment of government land by the appellant before or post her election as Sarpanch. 

"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," the bench said.

In this vein, the court emphasised, the concerned authorities need to sensitise 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.

It has thus directed that Panpatil should be allowed to continue and perform the duties of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat till the completion of her tenure.