In a recent development, the Orissa High Court has expressed concerns over the prevalent practice of husbands acting as proxy sarpanchs on behalf of their wives, which undermines the intended purpose of reserving seats for women in the Panchayati Raj system. This issue came to light during the case of Manoj Kumar Mangaraj versus The Collector, Kalahandi and Others.
Justice Dr. SK Panigrahi, in response to the case, has urged the Secretary of the Panchayati Raj Department to provide information on actions taken against such proxy sarpanchs and the steps taken to provide women sarpanchs with adequate capacity-building training. The court also inquired about the existence of a grievance redressal mechanism at the district level to address issues related to erring proxy sarpanchs.
The court expressed its concern about the patriarchal attitudes concealed within the practice of proxy sarpanch, emphasizing that it significantly impedes women’s participation and empowerment in public life.
While seeking a report on the actions taken, the court stressed the importance of the government taking this matter seriously, as it directly impacts the foundation of democracy at the grassroots level.
These observations were made during a case in which a Gaon Saathi filed a petition, alleging that he was being prevented from carrying out his duties by the husband of the elected Sarpanch. The petitioner refused to falsely report the presence of 30 job card holders under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) who had not fulfilled their obligations.
The court acknowledged that the influence of the Sarpanch’s husband, often referred to as “Sarpanch Pati,” played a crucial role in the appointment and termination of Gaon Saathis, wielding significant political and decision-making power. This phenomenon, termed “Sarpanch-patism,” runs counter to the spirit and purpose of the 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1992, which aims to empower women at the grassroots level. It also violates the constitutional rights and dignity of women.
The court argued that this practice relegates women to “faceless sarpanchs” in grassroots politics, depriving them of their agency, autonomy, and voice in public affairs.
Furthermore, the court emphasized that the Panchayati Raj and Drinking Water Department have a duty to safeguard the integrity of women’s reservations in the Panchayati Raj system in the state.
Consequently, the court ordered that the petitioner be allowed to fulfill his responsibilities as a Gaon Saathi until the next hearing scheduled for December 5.
The petitioner was represented by Advocate J. Panda, and Advocate D. Mund represented the state.
It’s worth noting that the Supreme Court had previously refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) petition addressing the issue of husbands operating village local bodies through proxies, including their wives, who contest elections reserved for women. The Supreme Court had cited the willingness of women to participate in such scenarios as a challenge to addressing this issue.
