Summary
The Supreme Court set aside the disqualification of an elected woman Sarpanch on an allegation that she lived in a house built on government land, finding no credible material for the allegation, criticising the authorities' summary orders made without any fact-finding, and holding the removal highly disproportionate.
Issues
- Whether the disqualification of the appellant as Sarpanch, on the allegation that she resided with her mother-in-law in a house on government land, was supported by the material on record.
- Whether the High Court was right in dismissing the appellant's writ petition against the Divisional Commissioner's order on a technical ground.
Held
- The Collector disqualified the appellant on bald statements without verifying her contentions that she lived separately with her husband and children in rented accommodation and that the house in question was too dilapidated to live in; the Divisional Commissioner confirmed this and the High Court dismissed her writ petition on a technical ground. (¶¶ 3, 4)
- There was no credible and convincing material on record to support the allegation that the appellant encroached on government land either before or after her election, and no such objection had been raised when she filed her nomination papers. (¶¶ 7, 10)
- The removal of an elected public representative must not be treated lightly, particularly where she is a woman from a rural area elected in the reservation quota; the Court criticised the casual, mechanical approach of the authorities and called on them to sensitise themselves and create a congenial atmosphere for women Sarpanches. (¶¶ 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)
- Removal from the office of Sarpanch was a highly disproportionate consequence in view of the nature of the allegations. (¶ 12)
Result
Appeal allowed; the High Court's order dated 03.08.2023 set aside; the appellant, who already had a stay in her favour, to continue as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat until the end of her tenure.