Summary
The Supreme Court quashed the removal of an elected woman Sarpanch in Chhattisgarh, finding that she was held solely responsible for delays in development works on a flimsy pretext and was not heard, and that the High Court should not have turned her away on the ground of alternative remedy. It reinstated her for the rest of her term and awarded Rs.1,00,000 costs against the State.
Issues
- Whether the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) removing the appellant as Sarpanch for alleged delay in development works was sustainable.
- Whether the High Court was right to dismiss her appeal on the ground that alternative remedies were available.
Provisions considered
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaThe Court said the High Court has wide discretion under Article 226 to entertain a writ petition despite an alternative remedy, especially where the executive has blatantly misused its power to undermine grassroots democracy; dismissal on that technical ground was wrong here. (¶ 16)
Held
- The work order requiring completion within three months was served on the Gram Panchayat only when that period had already run out, and responsibility for the projects was shared among several officials and the executing agency. Holding the Sarpanch alone accountable for delay, without evidence that she failed in a duty specific to her elected office, was unjustified; the proceedings were initiated on a flimsy pretext. (¶¶ 3, 10, 13)
- The allegations against the appellant were accepted at the district level without scrutiny and she was denied an opportunity to be heard; the removal order was passed hastily in disregard of the principles of natural justice. (¶ 11)
- Administrative authorities must recognise the difference between an elected representative and a selected public servant; elected representatives are not subordinates of bureaucrats, and treating them as holders of civil posts ignores the democratic legitimacy conferred by election. (¶ 12)
- The Court noted a recurring pattern, also observed in Manisha Ravindra Panpatil v. State of Maharashtra (27.09.2024), of officials and panchayat members acting together against women Sarpanches, and called on administrative authorities to support rather than obstruct women in elected office. (¶¶ 14, 15)
- The High Court ought not to have dismissed the appellant's appeal on the technical ground of alternative remedy, given its wide discretion under Article 226 where executive power has been misused. (¶ 16)
Result
Appeal disposed of; the removal order dated 18.01.2024 and the High Court's order dated 29.02.2024 quashed; the appellant to continue as Sarpanch till the end of her term; the State to pay her Rs.1,00,000 costs within four weeks, with the Chief Secretary to hold an inquiry against the officials responsible and liberty to recover the costs from them.