Supreme Court Raises Concern About Discriminatory Attitudes That Permeate All Levels Of Administration Towards Women Lawmakers.

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court (SC) of India raised concerns about discriminatory attitudes that permeate all levels of administration towards women representatives or lawmakers. This was observed while granting relief to a female sarpanch of a village who was disqualified on technical grounds. The SC bench said “we would like to note that 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 matter was heard by a two-judge bench constituting Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Surya Kant.

The SC opined, “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.” It added that due to the same reason the private respondents initiated their orchestrated efforts towards the removal of the appellant, from her duly elected position. The top Court 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 the appellant, by any means necessary. This initiative was undertaken by them, with the intention of securing her removal from public office.”

Moreover, the SC in its judgment mentioned, “Though the private respondents grasped at straws in their bid to evict the appellant from her position, 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.” After hearing the matter, the bench noted no convincing material to substantiate allegations against the appellant. It further observed, “...scenario gets further exacerbated when we as a country are attempting realize 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.”

Lastly, the SC bench said that the concerned authorities need to sensitize 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 added that the nature of allegations and the consequential punishment awarded to the appellant, namely, her removal from the office of Sarpanch, was highly disproportionate. Considering this, the bench ordered that the appellant should be allowed to continue and perform the duties of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat till the completion of her tenure.