Supreme Court calls out gender bias in public offices, urges stronger support for women leaders

The Supreme Court on Monday (Oct 07) condemned the ongoing discrimination against women in public offices, emphasising the need for stronger support systems that empower women rather than hinder them. A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan called attention to the gender biases women continue to face within administrative frameworks, despite constitutional protections and legislative measures.

The justices expressed concern that women, particularly in leadership roles, are often met with unfair challenges, stating, “As a country, we are attempting to realise the progressive goal of gender parity and women empowerment across all spheres, including public offices, and most importantly adequate women representatives in elected bodies.” They stressed that such barriers reveal ingrained discriminatory attitudes, preventing progress towards a more inclusive political environment.

The court underlined the importance of handling the removal of elected representatives, particularly women from rural areas, with great care, recognising the challenges these women face in securing and maintaining such positions. The court said, “We would like to reiterate 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.”

These strong observations from the court came as it reinstated Manisha Ravindra Panpatil as the sarpanch of Vichkheda in Maharashtra’s Jalgaon district. Local authorities had disqualified her on the grounds that she resided on government land, an allegation the court found unsubstantiated. Panpatil had been elected in February 2021.

In its ruling, the court urged government authorities to create a more supportive environment for women in governance, particularly in rural areas. It added the need for administrative bodies to “sensitise themselves and work towards creating a more conducive atmosphere.”

The court also noted that the actions of those seeking Panpatil’s disqualification stemmed from resistance to a woman holding decision-making power in the village. “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,” the court said.

Highlighting a broader issue of gender-based exclusion, the court remarked that Panpatil’s removal, based on unverified claims, reflected a wider problem of indifference towards women’s roles in local governance. It criticised the “mechanical and summary orders” issued by government officials, including the collector and divisional commissioner, which demonstrated a “systemic pattern of prejudicial treatment.”

The court expressed concern not only about the biased actions of the private complainants but also the casual manner in which government authorities had removed an elected representative. “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…” it said.

The court further warned against the routine or casual dismissal of elected representatives, particularly women from rural areas, as it overlooks the significant effort they invest in winning and maintaining their positions.

(With inputs from agencies)