Supreme Court of India
Manisha Ravindra Panpatil vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 September, 2024
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
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