Blog

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India recently set aside the disqualification of Manisha Ravindra Panpatil, a female Sarpanch from a village in Maharashtra, citing bias against women lawmakers and calling for greater sensitization of government authorities. The Court observed that the case reflected a broader systemic issue of discriminatory attitudes towards women in public offices, particularly in rural areas.

A Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan delivered the judgment, emphasizing that the removal of an elected representative, especially a woman, should not be treated lightly. The Court noted that such actions reflected a prejudiced attitude permeating through all levels of administration and stressed that this bias is “unfortunately somewhat of a norm” in India.

Background of the Case

The case concerned the disqualification of Manisha Ravindra Panpatil, who was elected as the Sarpanch of her village. Soon after her election, residents of the village, seemingly unwilling to accept a female Sarpanch, made efforts to have her removed from office. They approached the Collector, alleging that Panpatil was residing with her mother-in-law in a house built on government land.

Without properly verifying the claims, the Collector disqualified Panpatil from her position. This decision was upheld by the Divisional Commissioner and later by the Bombay High Court, prompting Panpatil to approach the Supreme Court for relief.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court strongly criticized the actions of both the private respondents and the authorities involved. It noted that Panpatil’s election as Sarpanch was met with hostility by the villagers, who struggled to reconcile with the idea of a female leader making decisions on their behalf. The Court described the case as a “classic example” of how deeply entrenched biases against women in leadership roles manifest in India, especially in rural settings.

The Court remarked, “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.” The Bench further observed that the private respondents sought to remove Panpatil through any means necessary, even when there was no evidence of misconduct on her part.

The apex court criticized the casual approach adopted by government authorities in disqualifying Panpatil. It expressed concern over how lightly the matter was handled, especially when it involved an elected woman representative from a reserved quota.

Gender Bias in Administration

The Supreme Court highlighted that the treatment of Panpatil was not an isolated incident but part of a larger, systemic pattern of prejudicial treatment towards women in elected positions. The Bench observed that these issues are particularly prevalent at the grassroots level, where women elected to public offices are often subjected to discrimination.

The Court underscored the importance of achieving gender parity and women’s empowerment in all spheres, including public offices. It expressed disappointment that such discriminatory bias against women lawmakers continues to exist, especially when India is striving to increase women’s participation in governance and ensure adequate representation in elected bodies.

“This scenario gets further exacerbated when we as a country are attempting to realize the progressive goal of gender parity and women empowerment across all spheres,” the Court noted, stressing that such instances cast a “heavy shadow” on any progress made toward achieving these goals.

The Verdict and Call for Sensitization

The Supreme Court set aside the order of Panpatil’s disqualification, restoring her position as Sarpanch. In doing so, the Court emphasized the need for sensitizing government authorities and creating a more supportive environment for women in public offices. The Bench urged authorities to ensure that women, particularly those elected in rural areas, are provided with a congenial atmosphere where they can “prove their worth” as leaders.

“In this vein, 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,” the Court said.

Legal Representation

Senior Advocate Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, along with advocates Vatsalya Vigya, Gautami Yadav, Pranjal Chapalgaonkar, Sapna Sinha, and Akshay Sinha, appeared for Panpatil. The respondents were represented by advocates Prashant Shrikant Kenjale, Shrirang B. Varma, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, and others.

Conclusion

This ruling is a crucial step toward recognizing and addressing the bias against women lawmakers in India’s rural governance systems. The Supreme Court’s emphasis on the need for sensitization of government officials to combat such discrimination is a reminder that while legal reforms are necessary, cultural and institutional changes are equally important to realize the goal of gender equality in governance.

The Manisha Ravindra Panpatil case serves as a powerful example of the struggles women face in asserting their leadership and authority, even after being democratically elected. It also sets a precedent for future cases involving discriminatory treatment of women in public offices, reinforcing the constitutional protection of equality and justice.

For more legal news updates, keep visiting Innerworks Advisors LLP, the best legal service provider in Kolkatta.