SC helps woman sarpanch fight prejudice, says bias against women elected representatives has become the norm

This is 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, says top court

A Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan gave the court’s powerful backing to a panchayat sarpanch in Maharashtra to continue with her good work.

“This is 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 and they would have to abide by her directions,” the Supreme Court said in a recent order.

Manisha Ravindra Panpatil had won the election to the Vichkheda panchayat in Jalgaon district from the seat reserved for women in February 2021.

Some of her detractors accused her of encroaching on government land and living in a house in it with her mother-in-law. They sought her disqualification. The sarpanch said she lived in rented accommodation with her husband and children. The house she was accused by her detractors of “living in” was too dilapidated for human inhabitation. But the District Collector summarily disqualified her as sarpanch. The order was confirmed by the Divisional Commissioner. Ms. Patil lost her case in the Bombay High Court, only to take the fight to the top court.

The Supreme Court, in its order, observed that instances like the bias that Ms. Patil had to deal with at the grassroots level cast a heavy shadow over the country’s efforts to have more women elected representatives.

“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 court observed.

The Supreme Court said the individuals who were arraigned against Ms. Patil were “grasping at straws” to remove her from the elected post. The government had been aiding them, perhaps in a mechanical way, by passing summary orders, it said.

“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 her by any means… This initiative was undertaken by them, with the intention of securing her removal from public office,” the court noted.

It said that discrimination against women in public offices had become “somewhat of a norm”.

“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… 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,” the court noted.

The Supreme Court set aside the Bombay High Court of August 3 and allowed Ms. Patil to continue as sarpanch till the completion of her term.

Published - October 07, 2024 09:09 pm IST