A protest erupted and a formal complaint was filed with the Election Commission (EC) after the Raigad District Collector conducted the September 18, 2025, public hearing on objections to Panvel Municipal Corporation’s draft ward delimitation and reservation notification in a closed-door session.
Advocate Siddharth S. Ingle, Founder President of Lok Hitkarini Sabha, called the action “completely arbitrary, illegal and a violation of democratic principles.” He alleged that instead of hearing objections filed by citizens, organisations and political parties, the administration held the proceedings in secret, excluding stakeholders and undermining transparency.
The hearing was conducted in a closed-door manner, thereby excluding several objectors, citizens, and representatives of organisations who had duly filed their objections and sought participation, Mr. Ingle’s letter to the ECI on September 23, said. “This procedure is wholly contrary to the principles of transparency, accountability, and natural justice, which form the foundation of free and fair elections under Article 243ZA of the Constitution of India,” the letter read.
The Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (Section 5(3)) and the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations (Delimitation of Wards and Reservation) Rules, 2006 mandate that objections and suggestions from the public must be duly considered, Mr. Ingle explained.
Such consideration necessarily requires an open and transparent hearing. “By resorting to a closed-door process, the Collector has denied citizens the right to collective participation and undermined the spirit of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution,” the letter read.
“In a democracy, the election process should be transparent, clean and credible. However, by holding hearings behind closed doors, the government and administration are endangering the trust of the public,” Mr. Ingle stated. He further claimed that the move amounted to “concrete evidence of secret administration and interference in the election process.”
The Supreme Court in Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002) 5 SCC 294, and other judgments, has emphasized that transparency is integral to the electoral process. Further, the rule of audi alteram partem laid down in State of Orissa v. Binapani Dei (AIR 1967 SC 1269) obligates authorities to give all affected parties a fair and open opportunity of being heard, the letter added.
A formal complaint has been filed with the EC of Maharashtra, seeking immediate directions to reconvene the hearing in an open and transparent manner, allowing participation of all objectors, representatives, and media. It also demands to ensure that all objections are duly considered in accordance with the Constitutional mandate of free and fair elections and issue necessary directions to the Collector, Raigad, to prevent recurrence of such arbitrary closed-door proceedings.
Published – September 24, 2025 05:20 am IST
