The Supreme Court recently flagged discriminatory attitude that permeated all levels of administration towards women lawmakers. The court was hearing a case concerning the removal of women Sarpanch in a village.
A Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan proceeded to stress that the matter pertaining to removal of an elected public representative should not be treated so lightly, especially when it concerns women belonging to rural areas.
The court in its order stated that they would like to note that the vagaries of the present factual matrix is far from unique and is unfortunately somewhat of a norm. It added that while there is no doubt in their 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 court underlined.
The bench was of the view that the election of Manisha Ravindra Panpatil (appellant) as the village sarpanch did not sit well with the residents of the village. It underlined that this was 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.
The court noted that the private respondents in all their motivations of defying a woman as Sarpanch, orchestrated their efforts towards the removal of the appellant from her duly-elected position.
The court stated that 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. It said that this initiative was undertaken by them, with the intention of securing her removal from public office.
Reportedly, the villagers had approached the Collector praying that Panpatil must be disqualified as she was allegedly residing with her mother-in-law in a house erected upon government land. Without verifying the allegations, the Collector disqualified the appellant from the post of Sarpanch based on bald statements. The decision of the Collector was upheld by the Divisional Commissioner and subsequently by the Bombay High Court. The woman lawmaker then approached the Supreme Court against the same.
The Supreme Court set aside the disqualification order and also expressed strong concern with regard to the discriminatory approach adopted by government authorities in summarily removing an elected representative without even verifying the allegations against her. It said that such discriminatory attitude is not unique but is unfortunately somewhat of a norm against women representatives.
Furthermore, the Court also highlighted that when a country like India is attempting to realize the progressive goal of gender parity and women empowerment across all spheres, such cases of discriminatory attitude towards a gender at the grass-root level cast doubts on the object sought to be achieved.
The court also observed that this scenario gets further exacerbated when a country is attempting to realize the progressive goal of gender parity and women empowerment across all spheres, including public offices and most importantly adequate women representatives in the elected bodies. It added that such instances at the grass-root level cast a heavy shadow on any headway that they may have achieved. the Court observed while taking note that there was no convincing material to substantiate allegations against Panpatil.
Mentioning that there was no convincing material to substantiate allegations against the appellant, the apex court set aside the order of her disqualification. The Court also called for sensitization of government authorities since it is for them to create a congenial atmosphere towards women.