Removal of an elected public representative should not be treated lightly, especially when it concerns women belonging to rural areas, the Supreme Court has said as it set aside an order for removal of a woman sarpanch in a Maharashtra village.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan termed the matter as a classic case where the residents of the village could not reconcile with the fact that a woman was elected to the office of the sarpanch.
The top court observed that it was a case where villagers were unable to come to terms with the reality that a female sarpanch would make decisions on their behalf and that they would have to abide by her directions.
“This scenario gets further exacerbated when we as a country are attempting to realise the progressive goal of gender parity and women empowerment across all spheres, including public offices and most importantly adequate women representative in elected bodies, such instances at the grass-root level cast a heavy shadow on any headway that we may have achieved,” the bench observed in its September 27 order.
Underscoring that it must be acknowledged that these women, who succeed in occupying such public offices, do so only after significant struggle, the bench said, “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”.
The bench was dealing with a plea of Manish Ravindra Panpatil, an elected sarpanch of gram panchayat, Vichkheda situated in Jalgaon district of Maharashtra. She was ordered to be removed from her post after a complaint by fellow villagers that she was allegedly residing with her mother-in-law in a house constructed on government land.
The allegation was denied by Panpatil, who claimed she does not reside in that particular dwelling, and that she lives separately with her husband and children in a rented accommodation.
However, without appropriately verifying these facts and on the basis of “bald statements”, the Collector concerned passed an order disqualifying her from continuing as sarpanch.
“This order was thereafter confirmed by the divisional commissioner. Subsequently, the high court vide the impugned order, dismissed the appellant’s writ petition against the commissioner’s order on a technical ground, thus putting a seal of approval on her removal from office,” the bench noted.
The bench noted that the villagers grasped at straws in their bid to evict Panpatil from her position and their cause was perhaps aided by the mechanical and summary orders passed by government authorities at various levels.
“These orders were passed in a lackadaisical manner, without making any effort towards conducting a fact-finding exercise, so as to confirm whether the allegations levied by the private respondents were sufficiently made out. There is nothing on record to suggest that any objection of the appellant’s family having encroached upon government land was ever raised when she filed her nomination papers,” the bench said.
While noting that the vagaries of the present factual matrix is far from unique and is unfortunately somewhat of a norm, the bench said there is no doubt that the private respondents (villagers) may have operated in a discriminatory manner.
It said 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,” it said.
The top court said having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it sees no credible and convincing material on record to substantiate the allegations of encroachment of government land by Panpatil before or post her election as sarpanch.
