In a significant ruling that underscores the importance of grassroots democracy and gender equality in leadership, the Supreme Court of India quashed the removal of Sonam Lakra, a 27-year-old Sarpanch of Sajbahar Gram Panchayat, Chhattisgarh. The apex court’s decision, delivered by Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, emphasized the fundamental distinction between elected representatives and appointed officials, criticizing administrative overreach and gender bias.
Background of the Case
Sonam Lakra, a young and dynamic Sarpanch, was elected in 2020 with a resounding mandate. Her tenure focused on developmental projects under the Mahatma Gandhi Rural Industrial Park (RIPA) Scheme, which aimed to transform Sajbahar village by constructing industrial infrastructure, schools, and roads. However, procedural delays from administrative authorities, including a late-served work order requiring completion of projects within an impractical three-month timeframe, led to allegations of inefficiency against her.
Despite clarifying that the delay was beyond her control, Lakra faced harassment, culminating in her removal from office by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Pharsabahar, on January 18, 2024. Attempts to challenge her removal through higher authorities and the High Court were unsuccessful, compelling her to seek justice in the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues
1. Violation of Natural Justice: Lakra argued that she was removed without a fair hearing, contravening the principles of natural justice.
2. Administrative Overreach: The work order delay and subsequent attribution of responsibility solely to her were alleged to be part of a coordinated effort to undermine her credibility.
3. Gender Bias in Governance: The case highlighted systemic prejudice against female Sarpanches, with Lakra drawing parallels to similar instances nationwide.
Senior advocate representing Lakra contended that the removal violated the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, and underscored the misuse of administrative authority. The State, represented by its counsel, maintained that procedural compliance was ensured.
Observations and Decision by the Court
Terming the removal as “a classic case of administrative imperiousness,” the Supreme Court reinstated Lakra, finding the proceedings against her to be baseless and motivated. The bench made several significant observations:
– On Administrative Overreach: “It is incomprehensible how a junior official like a Sub-Divisional Officer is empowered to determine the fate of an elected Sarpanch.”
– On Gender Bias: The court lamented the systemic discrimination against female leaders, observing, “The removal of female Sarpanches in rural areas often reflects entrenched bias and disregard for democratic principles.”
– On Strengthening Democracy: Emphasizing the role of elected representatives, the bench remarked, “Administrative authorities must foster an environment that encourages grassroots leadership instead of stifling it.”
The court quashed the orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer and the High Court and reinstated Lakra as Sarpanch for the remainder of her term. Additionally, it directed the State of Chhattisgarh to pay ₹1,00,000 as compensation for the harassment caused to Lakra and initiate an inquiry against erring officials.
