'Sarpanch-patism’ Or Husband Working As 'Proxy' For Sarpanch Wife Defeats Purpose Of Women Reservation: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court has expressed serious concerns over husbands/male members of women sarpanches acting as ‘proxy sarpanch’ and discharging duties as de facto sarpanch in the place of elected female sarpanches.

The Single Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi held that such system of ‘proxy sarpanch’ or ‘sarpanch-patism’ defeats the very purpose of the Constitution (73^rd Amendment) Act, 1992 and observed:

“This genre of Sarpanch-patism undermines the spirit and purpose of the 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1992 with provisions for empowerment of women at the grassroots level and violates the constitutional rights and dignity of women, who are reduced to "faceless sarpanches" at the grassroots politics. It deprives them of their agency, autonomy, and voice in public affairs.”

The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by a ‘Gaon Saathi’ who was allegedly restrained from discharging his duties by the husband of a female sarpanch of Turechhada gram panchayat in the district of Kalahandi.

The petitioner stated that the husband of the sarpanch asked him to reflect the presence of 30 job card holders under the MGNREGA scheme even though those card-holders did not perform any work. As the petitioner hesitated to accept such diktat, he was not allowed to work as a Gaon Saathi in the gram panchayat anymore.

Being aggrieved, the petitioner first approached the Collector, Kalahandi for redressal of his grievances. But the Collector sat over the matter and did not take it up for long time, for which he was constrained to take shelter of the High Court under its writ jurisdiction.

Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that restraining the petitioner from discharging his duties is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It was submitted that the husband of the woman sarpanch of the said gram panchayat acts as the de facto sarpanch and portrays himself as the sarpanch.

It was further argued that being a gaon saathi, the petitioner was duty bound to comply with the orders of the sarpanch and not that of her husband, who has tried to hijack the roles and responsibilities of sarpanch.

Court’s Observations

The Court noted that the 73rd Amendment to the Constitution granted constitutional status to the traditional Panchayati Raj institutions in India. This helped decentralise system of governance and granted legal power to local authorities to manage village-level affairs and improve public service delivery.

Justice Panigrahi also noted that Article 243D of the Constitution mandates the State Governments to include a provision in the respective State Acts for reserving a minimum of one third of seats for women at all levels in Panchayati Raj system, whereas, the State like Odisha follows 50% reservation for women.

“In the present case, the Sarpanch Pati seems to be playing a very important role in appointment and termination of the Gaon Sathi, while wielding the actual political and decision-making power behind his spouse who is elected as Sarpanch,” the Court observed.

It was of the opinion that this kind of ‘sarpanch patism’ defeats the purpose of reservation for women in the Panchayati Raj institution.

“The patriarchal attitudes in the veil of proxy Sarpanch and practices greatly hinders women's participation and empowerment in public life. Enacting laws and policies to prevent and punish Sarpanch-patism and other forms of proxy politics,” it added.

Accordingly, the Court directed the Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department to file a reply as to what action has been taken by the concerned Department against such proxy sarpanches and what steps have been taken to give women sarpanches proper capacity building training.

“Since the proxy Sarpanches are managing the Gram Panchayats especially where women are Sarpanches, the Government through appropriate Department has to deal with such matter seriously or else, the grassroots of the democracy would be in peril,” the Bench underlined.

Further, the Secretary was ordered to file an affidavit stating the availability of the provisions of complaint/grievance redressal mechanism at the district level against such erring proxy Sarpanches.

Case Title: Manoj Kumar Mangaraj v. The Collector, Kalahandi & Ors.

Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 31039 of 2023

Date of Order: November 08, 2023

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. J. Panda, Advocate

Counsel for the State: Mr. D. Mund, Addl. Govt. Advocate

Click Here To Read/Download Order