SONAM LAKRAversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS.

         [2024] 11 S.C.R. 2362 : 2024 INSC 901

                       Sonam Lakra
                            v.
               State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
               (Civil Appeal No. 12326 of 2024)
                      14 November 2024
           [Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.]


                    Issue for Consideration
Whether the removal of an elected female Sarpanch from office
by administrative officials was warranted.

                           Headnotes†
Administrative officials misusing their authority for removal of
an elected female Sarpanch from office on false and untenable
grounds – Blatant disregard for principles of natural justice:
Held: Appellant is an elected Sarpanch and has undertaken
several measures towards the development of the village – Delay
in execution of certain construction works unjustly attributed
to the Appellant leading to her removal from office – Appellant
sought relief from higher authorities – High Court dismissed her
appeal – Held – Members of the Gram Panchayat, hand in glove
with administrative authorities made a calculated effort to obstruct
the initiatives of the elected Sarpanch – During proceedings at
District Administration level blatant disregard of well-established
principles of natural justice – Proceedings initiated on flimsy
pretext to remove Appellant on false and untenable grounds –
Impugned orders quashed – Appellant to continue to hold office till
the end of her term – State to pay costs for harassment faced by
Appellant. [Paras 9-11]

Distinction between an elected public representative and a
selected public servant:
Held: Incomprehensible how a Sub Divisional Officer can
direct the removal of an elected representative – Administrative
authorities failed to recognize the fundamental distinction between
an elected public representative and a selected public servant –
Elected representatives like the Sarpanch are often treated
[2024] 11 S.C.R.                                                           2363

              Sonam Lakra v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.


     as subordinate to bureaucrats – This misconceived and self­
     styled supervisory power is asserted with an intention to equate
     elected representatives with public servants holding civil posts,
     completely disregarding the democratic legitimacy conferred by
     election. [Para 12]

     Recurring pattern of similar cases where administrative
     authorities collude to exact vendettas against female
     Sarpanches – Highlighting systemic issues of prejudice and
     discrimination – Need to make efforts to promote women’s
     empowerment:
     Held: Recurring pattern of similar cases, where administrative
     authorities and village panchayat members collude to exact
     vendettas against female Sarpanches – Systemic issue of prejudice
     and discrimination – Reliance placed on Manisha Ravindra
     Panpatil v. The State of Maharashtra – Cases involving female
     Sarpanches often reveal a pervasive pattern of unfair treatment
     across various levels of administrative functioning – Administrative
     authorities, being custodians of actual powers and affluent enough,
     should lead by example, making efforts to promote women’s
     empowerment and support female led initiatives in rural and remote
     areas. [Paras 14, 15]

     Constitution of India, Article 226 – High Court has vast
     discretion – Can entertain writ petition, even when alternate
     remedies exist:
     Held: High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226
     has vast discretion to entertain a writ petition, even if alternate
     remedies may exist – Especially in cases where the Executive has
     blatantly and brazenly misused its power to weaken democratic
     values at the grass root level. [Para 16]

                              Case Law Cited
     Manisha Ravindra Panpatil v. The State of Maharashtra, 2024
     INSC 762 : [2024] 9 SCR 770 – relied on.

                                List of Acts
     Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993; Chhattisgarh
     Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995.
2364                                                         [2024] 11 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


                             List of Keywords
     Removal of Female Sarpanch; Elected public representative;
     Selected public servant.

                            Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 12326 of 2024
     From the Judgment and Order dated 29.02.2024 of the High Court
     of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in WA No. 109 of 2024

                         Appearances for Parties
     Manish Kumar Gupta, Lave Kumar Sharma, Sharadprakash
     Pandey, Advs. for the Appellant.
     Vikrant Singh Bais, D.A.G., Vinayak Sharma, Ravinder Kumar
     Yadav, Kshitiz Aggarwal, Kritika Yadav, Advs. for the Respondents.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                    Order

     Leave granted.
2.   The appellant in this case is a 27-year-old woman, with a seemingly
     strong commitment towards improving democracy at the grassroots
     level. Motivated by this vision, she contested the elections in 2020
     for the position of Sarpanch of the Sajbahar Gram Panchayat in
     District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, the village that she belongs to. She
     was subsequently declared elected with a substantial margin.
3.   Having assumed the office of Sarpanch, the appellant undertook
     several measures towards development of the village, with the
     objective of bettering the quality of lives of its inhabitants. Pursuantly,
     after significant effort by the appellant, the Zila Panchayat, Jashpur
     sanctioned 10 construction projects for the Sajbahar village under the
     aegis of the Mahatma Gandhi Rural Industrial Park Scheme (RIPA).
     These construction works involved the development of industrial
     infrastructure, along with amenities such as roads and schools,
     which would not only improve the well-being of the villagers but also
     aid in making the village economically self-sufficient. However, the
     Chief Executive Officer of the Janpad Panchayat, despite lacking
[2024] 11 S.C.R.                                                    2365

              Sonam Lakra v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.


     technical expertise regarding the time required for such projects,
     issued a Work Order on 16.12.2022, mandating completion of the
     development works within the limited duration of three months.
     This order for reasons best known to the Chief Executive Officer
     was belatedly served to the Gram Panchayat on 21.03.2023, which
     ironically marked the end of the stipulated three-month period since
     the date of issuance of the work order.
4.   Subsequently, the delay in execution was unjustly attributed to the
     appellant, resulting in a Show-Cause Notice issued on 26.05.2023,
     followed by a chargesheet. In her response, the appellant clarified
     that there was no delay in the construction work. Despite her
     explanation, bureaucratic high-handedness led to her removal from
     office on 18.01.2024.
5.   Aggrieved, the appellant sought relief from higher authorities and
     the High Court but faced rejection at every turn. Undeterred, she
     initiated the present proceedings. On 05.04.2024, this Court stayed
     the orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Pharsabahar,
     and the High Court, reinstating the appellant as Sarpanch and
     directing that she be allowed to perform her duties without any
     obstruction.
6.   The respondent-State of Chhattisgarh has filed a counter-affidavit,
     containing mechanical contentions that “sufficient opportunity was
     afforded to the appellant to present her case” and that an inquiry
     was conducted in compliance with the provisions of the Chhattisgarh
     Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, and the Chhattisgarh Panchayats
     (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995. The State further alleges that
     the appellant failed to submit the Work Completion Reports on five
     occasions.
7.   Be that as it may, we have heard learned counsel for the parties
     and carefully perused the material placed on record.
8.   This appears to be a classic case of administrative imperiousness,
     resulting in the removal of an elected Sarpanch—a young woman
     dedicated to serving her remote village in Chhattisgarh. Rather than
     recognizing her commitment and supporting her vigor for the village’s
     development, the authorities unjustly penalized her for baseless and
     unwarranted reasons.
2366                                                     [2024] 11 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


9.   A prima facie examination of the case trajectory reveals a calculated
     effort by members of the Gram Panchayat, hand in glove with
     administrative authorities, to obstruct the appellant’s initiatives.
     These individuals sought to undermine her credibility with unfounded
     accusations of misconduct and, when these stratagems failed,
     resorted to sabotaging development projects. This concerted
     campaign ultimately led to her unjust removal as the duly elected
     Sarpanch. It is cause for concern that at every step, the appellant
     faced relentless obstacles and received little to no support in her
     endeavors.
10. The first instance of hindrance in this appeal can be pinpointed to
    the Work Order dated 16.12.2022, which required completion of the
    project within three months but was served to the appellant only after
    the stipulated period had elapsed. Subsequently, on 25.05.2023, once
    the construction work had begun, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Rural
    Engineering Services, Pharsabahar—who also bore responsibility for
    overseeing the project—expressed his dissatisfaction over the alleged
    delay in completing the work under the RIPA scheme, and even
    went so far as to request that action be taken against the appellant.
11. When proceedings commenced at the District Administration level,
    not only were the bald allegations against the appellant accepted
    without scrutiny, but she was also denied the fundamental opportunity
    to be heard. It is deeply troubling to witness administrative officials
    misusing their authority and blatantly disregarding well-established
    principles of natural justice. It is incomprehensible how the Sub-
    Divisional Officer (Revenue), Pharsabahar, issued the order dated
    18.01.2024, directing the removal of an elected representative in such
    a lackadaisical and hasty manner. It is even more so intriguing that
    a junior official like a Sub-Divisional officer has been empowered to
    determine the fate of an elected Sarpanch.
12. The administrative authorities, with their colonial mindset, have
    regrettably failed yet again to recognize the fundamental distinction
    between an elected public representative and a selected public
    servant. Invariably, elected representatives like the appellant are
    often treated as subordinate to bureaucrats compelled to comply with
    directives that serve to encroach upon their autonomy and impinge
    their accountability. This misconceived and self-styled supervisory
    power is asserted with an intention to equate elected representatives
[2024] 11 S.C.R.                                                      2367

              Sonam Lakra v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.


     with public servants holding civil posts, completely disregarding the
     democratic legitimacy conferred by election.
13. What further muddies these already murky waters is the selective
    accountability imposed on the appellant for the alleged delay
    in completing the development works. This is despite the fact
    that responsibility for these projects was shared among multiple
    stakeholders, including the Sub-Divisional Officer, Rural Engineering
    Services, the Deputy Engineer, the Technical Officer, the CEO of
    the Janpad Panchayat, and the Executing Agency. It is self-evident
    that construction projects require coordinated efforts from engineers,
    contractors, timely supply of materials, and are subject to the vagaries
    of weather etc. Holding the Sarpanch solely accountable for delays,
    without evidence of her failing in allocating work or performing a duty
    specific to her elected position, is totally atrocious. We are convinced
    that these proceedings were initiated on a flimsy pretext, so as to
    remove the appellant from office under false and untenable grounds.
14. It deeply concerns us that there is a recurring pattern of similar cases,
    where administrative authorities and village panchayat members
    collude to exact vendettas against female Sarpanches. Such instances
    highlight a systemic issue of prejudice and discrimination. More
    recently, in Civil Appeal No. 10913/2024, titled ‘Manisha Ravindra
    Panpatil v. The State of Maharashtra’, decided on 27.09.2024,
    we observed that cases involving female Sarpanches often reveal
    a pervasive pattern of unfair treatment across various levels of
    administrative functioning. Alarmingly, the removal of an elected
    female representative, especially in rural and remote areas, is
    frequently treated as a casual matter, wherein disregarding principles
    of natural justice and democratic processes is treated as a time-
    honored tradition. This entrenched bias is particularly disheartening
    and demands serious introspection and reform.
15. In this context, we must emphasize that as a nation striving to become
    an economic powerhouse, it is distressing to witness such incidents
    occurring consistently and being normalized, so much so that they
    bear striking similarities even in geographically distant regions.
    Administrative authorities, being custodians of actual powers and
    affluent enough, should lead by example, making efforts to promote
    women’s empowerment and support female-led initiatives in rural and
    remote areas. Instead of adopting regressive attitudes that discourage
2368                                                             [2024] 11 S.C.R.

                             Supreme Court Reports


     women in elected positions, they must foster an environment that
     encourages their participation and leadership in governance.
16. In this regard, we are also of the view that the High Court ought not
    to have dismissed the appellant’s appeal vide order dated 29.02.2024,
    on mere technical grounds, citing availability of alternative remedies.
    It is trite law that the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under
    Article 226 of the Constitution has the vast discretion to entertain a
    writ petition, even if alternate remedies may exist, especially in cases
    where the Executive has blatantly and brazenly misused its power
    to weaken democratic values at the grass root level.
17. The impugned orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue),
    Pharsabahar, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh dated 18.01.2024, as
    well as that of the High Court dated 29.02.2024 are, thus, quashed.
    The appellant shall continue to hold the Office of Sarpanch of Gram
    Panchayat Jashpur, Chhattisgarh till the completion of her term.
18. Furthermore, considering the harassment faced by the appellant,
    compelling her to engage in unavoidable litigation, we direct
    the respondent-State to pay her costs amounting to ₹1,00,000
    (Rupees One Lakh) within four weeks. The Chief Secretary, State of
    Chhattisgarh, is directed to release the said amount to the appellant
    within the stipulated time and thereafter conduct an inquiry against
    the delinquent officers/officials responsible for her harassment. The
    State is at liberty to recover the cost amount from such erring officials
    in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
19. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
20. As a result, pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stand
    disposed of.

     Result of the case: Appeal disposed of.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Vidhi Thaker, Hony. Associate Editor
                                 (Verified by: Shibani Ghosh, Adv.)