LexSONAM LAKRA versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[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. Motiv
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.