A significant controversy has erupted in Panvel following a recent ‘public’ hearing concerning the draft ward delimitation and reservation notification for the Panvel Municipal Corporation. The Raigad District Collector conducted this crucial hearing on September 18, 2025, behind closed doors, prompting immediate backlash and a formal complaint to the Election Commission (EC).
Advocate Siddharth S. Ingle, who founded the Lok Hitkarini Sabha, vehemently denounced the Collector’s actions as ‘completely arbitrary, illegal, and a blatant violation of democratic principles.’ He argued that instead of allowing citizens, community organizations, and political parties to voice their objections openly, the administration chose to conduct the proceedings in secret, effectively sidelining key stakeholders and eroding transparency.
Mr. Ingle’s complaint to the ECI, filed on September 23, highlighted that numerous objectors and representatives were unfairly barred from participating. He stressed that such a closed-door procedure directly contradicts the fundamental tenets of transparency, accountability, and natural justice, which are vital for free and fair elections under Article 243ZA of the Indian Constitution.
He further elaborated that both the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (Section 5(3)), and the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations (Delimitation of Wards and Reservation) Rules, 2006, explicitly require that all public objections and suggestions be given due consideration. This, by its very nature, necessitates an open and transparent hearing. By opting for a secret process, the Collector has denied citizens their constitutional right to collective participation, thereby undermining the spirit of Articles 14 and 19.
Mr. Ingle didn’t mince words, stating, ‘In a democracy, the election process must be transparent, clean, and credible. By holding hearings behind closed doors, the government and administration are dangerously eroding public trust.’ He went on to assert that this move serves as ‘concrete evidence of covert administration and undue interference in the electoral process.’
To bolster his arguments, the complaint referenced Supreme Court judgments, including Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002) 5 SCC 294, which underscore transparency as an indispensable element of the electoral system. Additionally, the principle of audi alteram partem, established in State of Orissa v. Binapani Dei (AIR 1967 SC 1269), mandates that all affected parties must be granted a fair and open opportunity to be heard.
Consequently, a formal complaint has been lodged with the Maharashtra Election Commission. It urgently requests that the EC issue immediate directives to reconvene the hearing in a fully open and transparent manner, ensuring that all objectors, representatives, and media are allowed to participate. The complaint also seeks assurances that all objections will be properly considered in line with the constitutional mandate for free and fair elections, and that necessary instructions are issued to the Raigad Collector to prevent any future occurrences of such arbitrary, closed-door proceedings.