Manisha Ravindra Panpatil vs The State Of Maharashtra

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 2024 INSC 762 CIVIL APPEAL NO.10913 OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.15073/2024)

MANISHA RAVINDRA PANPATIL APPELLANT

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. RESPONDENTS

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The appellant is an elected Sarpanch of Gram

Panchayat, Vichkheda situated in Jalgaon District of

Maharashtra. She contested in the panchayat elections and

won in February, 2021. A dispute subsequently arose

between the appellant and respondent nos. 5 to 7

(hereinafter referred as ‘the private respondents’), who

sought her disqualification on the ground that she was

allegedly residing with her mother-in-law in a house

erected upon government land. The appellant however, had

vehemently contended that she does not reside in that

particular dwelling, and that she lives separately with

Signature Not Verified her husband and children in a rented accommodation. She Digitally signed by ARJUN BISHT Date: 2024.10.04 16:37:37 IST further contended that the concerned dwelling was in such Reason:

a dilapidated condition that it could not be inhabited.

1

4. However, without appropriately verifying these

factual issues and on the basis of bald statements, the

concerned Collector passed an order disqualifying the

appellant from continuing as Sarpanch. This order was

thereafter confirmed by the Divisional Commissioner.

Subsequently, the High Court vide the impugned order,

dismissed the appellant’s writ petition against the

Commissioner’s order on a technical ground, thus putting

a seal of approval on her removal from office.

5. 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.

6. It is patently obvious that these were the primary

motivations which led the private respondents to initiate

their orchestrated efforts towards the removal of the

appellant, from her duly elected position. 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.

2

7. 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.

8. At this juncture, 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.

9. This scenario gets further exacerbated when we as a

country are attempting realize the progressive goal of

gender parity and women empowerment across all spheres,

3 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.

10. That being said and having regard to the facts and

circumstances of the case at hand, we see no credible and

convincing material on record to substantiate the private

respondents’ allegations of encroachment of government

land by the appellant before or post her election as

Sarpanch. All that we would like to reiterate is that the

matter of 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.

11. 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.

12. In our considered view, the nature of allegations

and the consequential punishment awarded to the

appellant, namely, her removal from the office of

Sarpanch, is highly disproportionate.

13. For the reasons afore-stated, the appeal is

allowed. The impugned order dated 03.08.2023 passed by

4 the High Court is set aside. The appellant, in whose

favour stay had already been granted, shall be allowed to

continue and perform the duties of Sarpanch of the Gram

Panchayat till the completion of her tenure.

14. Ordered accordingly.

...................J. (SURYA KANT)

...................J. (UJJAL BHUYAN)

New Delhi;

September 27, 2024

5 ITEM NO.40 COURT NO.4 SECTION IX S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).15073/2024 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 03-08-2023 in WP No.4577/2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature At Bombay At Aurangabad) MANISHA RAVINDRA PANPATIL Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. Respondent(s) (IA No. 60000/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 60001/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)

Date : 27-09-2024 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Vatsalya Vigya, AOR Ms. Gautami Yadav, Adv.

Ms. Pranjal Chapalgaonkar, Adv.

Ms. Sapna Sinha, Adv.

Mr. Akshay Sinha, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Prashant Shrikant Kenjale, AOR

Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv.

Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv.

Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv.

Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv.

Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv.

Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Adv.

Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed reportable order.

3. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(ARJUN BISHT) (PREETHI T.C.) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

(signed reportable order is placed on the file)

6