Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

The Supreme Court recently granted relief to a female Sarpanch disqualified on technical grounds, marks the discriminatory attitudes towards women in rural governance. The Court emphasized the seriousness of removing an elected representative, particularly a woman in a reserved position, pointing to systemic biases within administrative processes that challenge women's authority in leadership roles.  

• Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan held this in the matter of Manisha Ravindra Panpatil v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.  

What was the Background of Manisha Ravindra Panpatil v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. Case? 

• Manisha Ravindra Panpatil was elected as the Sarpanch (village head) of Gram Panchayat, Vichkheda in Jalgaon District, Maharashtra in February 2021. 
• After her election, some villagers (referred to as private respondents) filed a disqualification petition against her. 
• The grounds for disqualification were that she was allegedly residing with her mother-in-law in a house built on government land. 
• Ms. Panpatil contested these allegations, stating that:  
  • She lived separately with her husband and children in a rented accommodation 
  • The house in question was in such poor condition that it couldn't be inhabited 
• The local Collector issued an order disqualifying her from continuing as Sarpanch. 
• Ms. Panpatil appealed this decision to the Divisional Commissioner, who confirmed the Collector's order. 
• She then filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) challenging these orders. 
• The High Court dismissed her petition on technical grounds on 3rd August 2023. 
• Following this, Ms. Panpatil appealed to the Supreme Court of India through a Special Leave Petition. 
• It's worth noting that there were no objections raised about land encroachment when she initially filed her nomination papers for the Sarpanch position.

Special Leave Petition

• Special Leave Petitions in India (SLP) holds a prime place in the judicial system of India. 
• The Supreme Court is empowered to entertain SLPs only in cases when any substantial question of law is involved. 
• Article 136 of the Indian Constitution vests the Supreme Court of India, with this special power to grant special leave to appeal against any judgment or order or decree in any matter or cause, passed by any Court/Tribunal in the territory of India.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Court identified this as a case where village residents were unable to accept a woman as their elected Sarpanch and were resistant to following directives from a female leader. 
• The Court noted that the private respondents, finding no professional misconduct, resorted to casting aspersions on the appellant to secure her removal from office. 
• The Court observed that government authorities at various levels passed mechanical and summary orders without conducting proper fact-finding exercises to verify the allegations. 
• The Court found no credible or convincing material on record to substantiate the allegations of government land encroachment by the appellant. 
• The Court determined that the removal of an elected representative, especially a woman from a rural area, was treated with unwarranted casualness by the authorities. 
• The Court acknowledged that women who succeed in occupying public offices do so only after significant struggle. 
• The Court found the nature of the allegations and the consequential punishment (removal from office) to be highly disproportionate. 
• The Court emphasized that such discriminatory actions at the grassroots level undermine the country's progress toward gender parity and women's empowerment in public offices. 
• The Court directed that authorities need to sensitize themselves and work towards creating a more conducive atmosphere for women representatives to serve in their elected positions. 
• The Court observed that the treatment of this case was particularly concerning given the broader context of attempting to achieve adequate women representation in elected bodies. 

Landmark Judgments that Change the Course for Women in India   

• Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997): 
  • Defined sexual harassment at workplace and provided guidelines for its prevention. 
  • Made employers responsible for ensuring a safe working environment for women. 
  • Remained the primary law on workplace sexual harassment until the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013. 
• Mary Roy v. State of Kerala (1986): 
  • Granted Syrian Christian women the right to inherit equal shares in their father's property. 
  • Invalidated the Travancore Christian Succession Act which gave women limited inheritance rights. 
  • Led to significant reforms in personal laws regarding property rights. 
• Ahmad Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985) (Shah Bano case): 
  • Upheld the right of Muslim women to get maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). 
  • Ruled that Muslim women have the right to maintenance beyond the iddat period. 
  • Sparked nationwide discourse on uniform civil code and personal laws. 
• Laxmi v. Union of India (2014): 
  • Led to stringent regulations on sale of acids and compensation for acid attack victims. 
  • Made acid attack a non-bailable offense. 
  • Required hospitals to provide free treatment to acid attack victims. 
• Indian Young Lawyers Association v. The State of Kerala (Sabarimala Case, 2018): 
  • Lifted the ban on entry of women of menstruating age into Sabarimala temple 
  • Held that physiological features cannot be a ground for denial of constitutional rights 
  • Emphasized that exclusionary practices violate the right to worship 
• Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018): 
  • Decriminalized adultery by striking down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).  
  • Rejected the notion that women are property of their husbands. 
  • Emphasized women's right to sexual autonomy within marriage. 
• Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020): 
  • Granted daughters equal coparcenary rights in Hindu Undivided Family property 
  • Made the right retroactive, applying to living daughters of living coparceners 
  • Corrected the ambiguity created by previous conflicting judgments 
• Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya (2020): 
  • Granted permanent commission to women officers in the Indian Army 
  • Rejected arguments based on physiological limitations and social norms 
  • Emphasized that denial of equal opportunities to women officers is discriminatory 
• Aprna Bhat v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (2021): 
  • The Supreme Court of India addressed problematic bail conditions imposed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in a sexual harassment case, where the accused was ordered to visit the victim with a rakhi thread and sweets as part of his bail conditions. 
  • The Court emphasized that such conditions trivialize sexual offenses, perpetuate harmful gender stereotypes, and potentially traumatize victims further by forcing contact with their abusers. 
  • The judgment states comprehensive guidelines for courts across India, directing them to avoid gender stereotyping, patriarchal notions, and any conditions that diminish the gravity of sexual offenses or mandate contact between the accused and the victim. 
  • The Court mandated gender sensitization training for judges, lawyers, and prosecutors, and directed the National Judicial Academy and Bar Council of India to develop appropriate curricula to address these issues in legal education and judicial training. 
  • The judgment highlighted the crucial role of judges as thought leaders and emphasized their duty to remain impartial while being sensitive to gender-related crimes and avoiding language or conditions that could undermine survivors' confidence in the justice system.