Distressing To Witness Discrimination Against Women In Governance When Country Aspires To Be Economic Powerhouse: Supreme Court

While granting relief to a woman Sarpanch in Chattisgarh against her removal from office, the Supreme Court expressed concerns about the growing trend of bureaucratic harassment against female elected representatives.The Court observed that such recurring instances of bureaucratic officers exacting vendetta against female sarpanches by causing their removal from offices highlight a "systemic issue of prejudice and discrimination."The Court said that it was distressing to witness such instances of discrimination against women in governance when the country was aspiring to become an economic powerhouse. “It is disheartening that despite our nation's aspirations to become an economic powerhouse, these incidents of discrimination against women in governance continue unabated, bearing striking similarities across geographically distant regions. Such practices normalise regressive attitudes and must be met with serious introspection and reform,” observed the bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.The Court made these remarks while hearing an appeal filed by a woman Sarpanch, who was removed from her office on the ground of delay in the execution of some construction works. She was a 27-year-old woman, who was elected as the Sarpanch of Sajbahar Gram Panchayat in 2020 with a good margin. In 2023, she was removed from office by an order passed under the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. She approached the Supreme Court after the High Court denied her relief.The Supreme Court found that the delay was not attributable to the Sarpanch and that the proceedings against her were arbitrary and high-handed."It is self-evident that construction projects require coordinated efforts from engineers, contractors, timely supply of materials, and are subject to the vagaries of weather etc. Holding the Sarpanch solely accountable for delays, without evidence of her failing in allocating work or performing a duty specific to her elected position, is totally atrocious," the Court observed in the order dictated in the open court on November 14.In the judgment which was uploaded recently, the Court has made certain additional observations condemning the discriminatory attitude towards women representatives. "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 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 Court observed.Notably, earlier as well, the Court granted relief to a female Sarpanch of a village in Maharashtra who was disqualified on technical grounds, raising concerns about the discriminatory attitudes which permeate through all levels of administration towards women representatives.The Court urged that administrative authorities must create a conducive environment for women."In this context, we must emphasize that as a nation striving to become an economic powerhouse, it is distressing to witness such incidents occurring consistently and being normalized, so much so that they bear striking similarities even in geographically distant regions. Administrative authorities, being custodians of actual powers and affluent enough, should lead by example, making efforts to promote women's empowerment and support femaleled 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 Court also called out the "colonial mindset" of the administrative authorities."The administrative authorities, with their colonial mindset, have regrettably failed yet again to recognize the fundamental distinction between an elected public representative and a selected public servant. 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. 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."Further, the approach of the High Court in declining relief citing the existence of alternative remedy was criticised, by saying that the discretionary remedy under Article 226 must be exercised "especially in cases where the Executive has blatantly and brazenly misused its power to weaken democratic values at the grass root level."The Court directed the Chief...

Distressing To Witness Discrimination Against Women In Governance When Country Aspires To Be Economic Powerhouse: Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags