What TV doesn't, print can't; we deliver.
What TV doesn't, print can't; we deliver.
Supreme Court has strongly criticized the systemic gender discrimination faced by elected women representatives, especially at the Panchayat (village council) level.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has strongly criticized the systemic gender discrimination faced by elected women representatives, especially at the Panchayat (village council) level. This observation was made during the adjudication of a case involving the removal of a female Sarpanch, which the Court identified as yet another instance of administrative collusion targeting female leaders.
A Bench consisting of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan highlighted the pervasive bias that female Sarpanches face across India. “Instances of gender prejudice and the disregard for natural justice in the removal of elected female representatives are distressingly common, particularly in rural and remote areas,” the Bench noted, calling for urgent reforms to address this deep-seated issue.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court differentiates between consensual relationships, false promises of marriage
The Court observed that such discriminatory practices not only undermine democratic processes but also hinder the nation’s ambitions to become an economic powerhouse. It condemned the normalization of such incidents, emphasizing the need for administrative authorities to promote women’s empowerment rather than perpetuate outdated attitudes.
The case involved Sonam Lakra, a 27-year-old Sarpanch of the Sajbahar Gram Panchayat, who was accused of delays in completing ten road construction projects and subsequently removed from her post in January 2024. The Supreme Court found that she was unfairly targeted, despite shared responsibility for overseeing the projects among other Panchayat members.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court seeks Ashish Mishra’s response on witness threat allegations in Lakhimpur Kheri case
Reversing the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court reinstated Lakra and awarded her ₹1 lakh in compensation for the harassment she suffered. The Court determined that the allegations against her were baseless and aimed at removing her under false pretences.
The judgment also criticized the tendency to treat elected representatives as subordinates to bureaucrats, undermining their autonomy. “Equating elected representatives with public servants disregards the democratic legitimacy conferred through elections,” the Court stated, underscoring the importance of respecting their role in governance.
