New Delhi: On Monday, the Supreme Court harshly condemned the persistent discriminatory attitudes against women holding public office, emphasizing the necessity of administrative frameworks that uphold women representatives rather than undermine them.
Emphasizing the importance of gender equality and women’s empowerment in public offices, a bench of justices, Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, noted that women suffer structural biases inside administrative structures despite constitutional mandates and legislative measures.
It pointed out a troubling pattern of discrimination, particularly against women leaders, remarking: “As a country, we are 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 elected bodies.”
The court emphasized that it is unfair to remove an elected representative, particularly a woman from a rural area, as it belittles the effort that these women make to win and hold their positions. “We would like to reiterate that the matter of the 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,” it said.
Manisha Ravindra Panpatil was elected Sarpanch in February 2021. In a major decision, the court ordered that Manisha Ravindra Panpatil be reinstated as the Sarpanch of Vichkheda in Jalgaon district of Maharashtra till the end of her tenure.There was an allegation against her of living on government land, which the court has declared baseless. This decision of the court has proved to be exactly opposite to the decision of the local authorities.
The court ordered government officials to create a more encouraging environment for women in governance, especially in rural areas. It highlighted the necessity for administrative organizations to “sensitize themselves and work towards creating a more congenial atmosphere.”.
The court observed that the private complainants’ acts, which aimed to disqualify Panpatil, were motivated by resistance to a female sarpanch exerting authority and making decisions on behalf of the community. “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,” it noted.
The removal of Panpatil, on the basis of imprecise allegations and without sufficient facts, the court noted, highlighted a pattern of gender-based exclusion and noted a larger issue of official indifference to women’s roles in local administration.
Join our whatsapp group for Latest updates