Allahabad HC Denounces Proxy Role of ‘Pradhanpati’ in Women’s Political Empowerment

The Allahabad High Court has expressed disapproval of the practice wherein husbands serve as proxies for women pradhans in Uttar Pradesh, stating that such intervention undermines the goal of providing reservations for women in politics.

In the dismissal of a writ petition filed by a ‘pradhanpati’ (husband of a woman village head), a bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery emphasized that a ‘pradhanpati’ has no authority to interfere with the functioning of the gram sabha. The court observed, “The term ‘Pradhanpati’ is very popular and widely used in Uttar Pradesh. It is used for the husband of a woman Pradhan. Despite being an unauthorized authority, ‘Pradhanpati’ unauthorisedly, usually undertakes work of a woman Pradhan, i.e., his wife.” The court noted instances where a woman Pradhan acts as a mere rubber stamp, with major decisions taken by the ‘Pradhanpati,’ rendering the elected representative a mute spectator. The court considered the present writ petition as a glaring example of such a situation.

The writ petition was filed by Gaon Sabha in the village of Madpuri in Nagina tehsil of Bijnor district through its pradhan, Karmjeet Kaur. However, the petition lacked any resolution authorizing her husband to file it. The court highlighted that, in the capacity of Pradhan, Kaur had no power to delegate her rights, duties, and obligations to her husband or any other person.

“The ‘pairokar,’ i.e., ‘Pradhanpati’ has no business to interfere with the working of Gaon Sabha. If such an act is permitted, it will not only frustrate the objective of women empowerment but also the objective of providing specific reservation to women to come forward and join the mainstream of politics and increase their participation in the social, economic, and cultural growth of the nation,” the court added.

Justice Shamshery acknowledged the effective exercise of power, rights, and duties by women Pradhans in Uttar Pradesh. However, the court deemed the present case as not falling into that category.

Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed with a cost of Rs 5,000 each to be paid by petitioner Karmjeet Kaur and her husband, Sukhdev Singh (pairokar in the present writ petition). The court directed the payment through demand draft from their respective bank accounts in favor of the Registrar General of this court within two weeks. The court also instructed that a copy of the order be sent to the Bijnor district magistrate to bar Sukhdev Singh from entering the office of Gaon Sabha in the capacity of ‘pradhanpati’ and to act as a representative of pradhan for the rest of her present term of office.

Furthermore, the court directed that a copy of this order be sent to the State Election Commission, urging them to issue a circular for all future election candidates, cautioning them to be careful in exercising their powers, functions, and duties as a representative of the village, not merely as a rubber stamp of their husband or relatives (in the case of a woman Pradhan).