Distressing to witness removal of elected woman Sarpanch on atrocious grounds: Supreme Court

Justice Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan further termed it a 'colonial mindset' and ordered her reinstatement besides saddling the government with Rs 1 lakh costs to be paid to her for unwanted litigation and harassment.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said as a nation striving to become an economic powerhouse, it is distressing to witness incidents of elected woman Sarpanchs being removed on atrocious grounds, consistently so much so they bear striking similarities even in geographically distant regions.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan took an exception to manner in which appellant Sonam Lakra was removed from the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, by the Sub Divisional Officer on flimsy ground of failing to execute work orders within three months.

Finding the grounds as totally atrocious and flimsy, the bench said, "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,"

The bench restored the 27-year-old appellant to her post and directed the state government to pay Rs one lakh as cost for compelling her to engage in unavoidable litigation.

Setting aside the HC's order refusing her any relief, the court also ordered the Chief Secretary to conduct an inquiry against the delinquent officers 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.

The bench felt 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 ­honoured tradition.

"This entrenched bias is particularly disheartening and demands serious introspection and reform," the bench said.

In the appellant's case, the bench noted she was elected in 2020 within a seemingly strong commitment towards improving democracy at the grassroots level.

With much of her significant efforts, 10 construction projects were sanctioned and a work order was issued on December 16, 2022, mandating period of three months for completion. However, the delay in execution was unjustly attributed to her, resulting into removal from office on January 18, 2024.

"This appears to be a classic case of administrative imperiousness...the authorities unjustly penalised her for baseless and unwarranted reasons," 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 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.