New Twist in MP Sarpanch Discrimination Row: CEO Attributes 'Tardiness' for Flag Hoisting Failure

Satna- In Madhya Pradesh's Satna district, a controversy involving alleged caste and gender discrimination against a female sarpanch from Akouna gram panchayat has taken a new turn. The incident, which initially surfaced when Sarpanch Shraddha Singh accused the deputy sarpanch and the village secretary of barring her from hoisting the national flag on August 15 and denying her a chair during a village assembly on August 17, has now drawn political attention and administrative scrutiny.

Sarpanch Shraddha Singh claimed that she was deliberately prevented from hoisting the flag during Independence Day celebrations and that, during a gram sabha meeting, she was humiliated by being denied a chair, forcing her to either sit on the ground or stand. Singh alleged that these actions were motivated by caste and gender bias, sparking widespread concern and criticism.

The 28-year-old Sarpanch had posted a video on the social media on August 17 in which she narrated the situation, detailing the alleged discrimination she faced. Alongside the video, she shared a copy of a letter she had sent to the Panchayat and Rural Development Minister Prahlad Singh Patel. She stated that according to state government orders, the flag hoisting was to be carried out by the Sarpanch. Shraddha had informed Panchayat Secretary Vijay Singh about the order, but by the time she arrived at the Panchayat premises, Deputy Sarpanch Dharmendra Singh Baghel had already hoisted the flag.

The sarpanch said this incident was not just due to her being a woman but was part of a deliberate plan because she belongs to the backward community. Sarpanch Shraddha Singh described this as a clear example of conspiracy and insult against her.

Media Coverage and Public Reaction

The controversy gained significant traction after The Mooknayak, ran an in-depth report on August 25. The story was widely shared by influential figures, including senior journalist and Director, The Hindu Publishing Group N. Ram, former IPS officer and former Governor of Puducherry Kiran Bedi, among others. The issue's prominence led the Congress party to take notice, with a tweet on Monday criticizing the state government for the alleged mistreatment of a female sarpanch. The mounting political pressure only added to the complexity of the situation.

Political Pressure and Administrative Response

Following these accusations, the Zila Parishad administration initiated an inquiry into the matter.

CEO Sanjana Jain issued a show-cause notice to Secretary Vijay Singh, citing media reports and photographs that allegedly showed the female Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Akauna during a meeting. The notice stated that while the Sarpanch stood, the Secretary sat on a chair, which was against proper decorum. When the Sarpanch requested a chair, the Secretary reportedly told her to either bring one from home or sit on the ground, a statement viewed as a grave insult to an elected representative.

The notice further accused the Secretary of failing to uphold his official duties, as outlined in the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Service (Conduct) Rules of 1998. Given the seriousness of the situation, the CEO demanded a personal appearance for detailed explanation with evidence at 3.30 pm on August 29. The notice also warned that failure to provide a satisfactory response could lead to suspension under the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules of 1999, holding the Secretary fully responsible for any such action.

However, Shraddha Singh has now accused the administration of shielding the village officials. She claims that CEO Sanjana Jain, hastily submitted a report on Monday August 26, referring to a meeting on August 22 without following proper procedures.

The sarpanch further alleged that the CEO warned her against raising the issue , threatening her with removal from office under any applicable law.

According to Singh, in the report Jain cleared the village secretary, Vijay Singh, of any wrongdoing. Singh questioned the urgency with which the report was submitted, noting that the secretary was originally scheduled to present his defense on August 29. Despite the fact that August 26 was a government holiday, Singh asked why the CEO felt compelled to rush the report in such haste.

The controversy has now taken on a political dimension, with the Congress party using the issue to attack the state government. The allegations of discrimination against a female sarpanch have raised serious concerns, despite the district administration's findings.

CEO's Report: Delay in Sarpanch’s Arrival Cited

In her report, CEO Sanjana Jain stated that as per the evidences of the people, Sarpanch Shraddha Singh did not arrive at the flag-hoisting ceremony at the designated time of 8:00 AM on August 15. The village secretary, Vijay Singh, reportedly attempted to contact the sarpanch multiple times via phone to ensure her timely presence. However, when she failed to arrive by 9:00 AM, the deputy sarpanch conducted the flag-hoisting ceremony. The report also mentioned that once Shraddha Singh arrived, she was respectfully seated in a chair at the village office. Jain concluded that there was no deliberate attempt to prevent Singh from hoisting the flag or to humiliate her.

Statements from Villagers and Findings: The CEO's report also included statements from local villagers, who confirmed that they had been invited to the flag-hoisting ceremony at 8:00 AM. However, when the sarpanch did not arrive by 9:00 AM, the attendees, including the deputy sarpanch and panch members, decided that the deputy sarpanch should hoist the flag. Jain further noted that the photos presented by the sarpanch, allegedly showing her standing while the secretary sat, were from a different location, not the village office. Based on these findings, the CEO determined that there was no basis for disciplinary action against the village secretary.

Sarpanch Accuses CEO of Whitewashing Report and Mismanaging Proceedings

Shraddha Singh stated that she was not late. Flag hoisting programs were also conducted in other areas, and at Akona, the agenda listed the flag hoisting for 8:30 a.m. However, a verbal agreement had been made to start the function precisely at 9:00 a.m. She arrived at the venue exactly at 9:00 a.m., but the flag hoisting had already been completed.

Speaking to The Mooknayak, Sarpanch Shraddha Singh strongly criticized the report and called it a whitewash attempt. She also raised several allegations regarding the proceedings:

1. No Hearing Notification: She claimed that she was not informed of any hearing on August 22, 2024, related to the matter in question. She had been summoned in connection to another meeting where the agenda was supposed to focus on the construction of a CC road, and not on the flag-hoisting issue.

2. Notice to the Secretary: The notice issued to Gram Panchayat Secretary Vijay Singh had given him until August 29, to respond. However, Shraddha Singh stated that she was never informed if the Secretary responded to the notice or when it was submitted. Furthermore, the Sarpanch alleged that during the meeting, a discussion took place casually on the flag-hoisting incident without any formal agenda, and she was not informed that this constituted a hearing on the issue.

3. Social Media Reprimand: The Sarpanch accused the CEO of expressing displeasure with her for publicizing the matter on social media and for posting videos regarding the incident. She claimed that the CEO even threatened her with possible removal from her position under some legal pretext.

4. Political Pressure: Shraddha Singh alleged that following a tweet from the opposition condemning the incident, which prompted the state government to seek an explanation, the CEO hastily prepared the report on August 26, despite it being a government holiday. She accused the CEO of submitting the report to the Collector with the intent of covering up the matter.

Meanwhile, the Sarpanch's husband, Anurag Singh, apologized to The Mooknayak for not disclosing that the Sarpanch belongs to the OBC community. Singh clarified that his intention was not to conceal this fact but rather to emphasize that both OBC and Dalit communities fall under the reserved category. The Mooknayak clarifies that the female Sarpanch is from the OBC (Other Backward Classes) category, and not from the Dalit community.

The Mooknayak has sent an email and a WhatsApp message to the CEO requesting a quote or explanation regarding the allegations. The news will be updated upon receiving a response.