Why the 73rd Constitutional Amendment cannot be ignored
The 73rd Constitutional Amendment was enacted to ensure that democratic governance reaches the village level. Articles 243A to 243G were introduced so that Panchayats may function as institutions of self-government. Under Article 243A, the Gram Sabha was recognised as the sovereign deliberative body of the village electorate. Under Article 243G, the State Legislature was empowered to devolve authority upon Panchayats so that planning and implementation of local development may remain with the people themselves.
This constitutional framework was not ornamental. It was meant to prevent the concentration of power in administrative officers and political intermediaries. The objective was that decisions concerning local land use, construction permissions, public welfare, and village resources must remain democratically controlled. Therefore, any statutory amendment that alters the institutional balance within Panchayati Raj must be examined strictly in light of these constitutional mandates.
The traditional Panchayat governance model in Goa
The Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 was enacted in alignment with this constitutional design. It distributes authority among the Gram Sabha, the Panchayat members, the Sarpanch, and the Secretary. The Gram Sabha approves developmental priorities and resolutions. The Panchayat members pass the binding decisions. The Sarpanch executes the works and supervises implementation. The Secretary acts as an administrative officer who issues licences only in pursuance of resolutions passed by the Panchayat.
This distribution ensures that the Panchayat remains democratically accountable and prevents unilateral executive dominance. The Secretary is not intended to be the controlling authority. The Act preserves the autonomy of the village by ensuring that policy is shaped by elected representatives and the Gram Sabha rather than by bureaucratic direction.
How the 2026 Amendment Bill centralises power in the secretary
The Goa Panchayat Raj (Amendment) Bill, 2026 proposes a decisive structural change. It seeks to amend Section 47 of the principal Act so that the Panchayat Secretary becomes the sole authority for granting construction permissions, trade licences, and occupancy certificates. The requirement that such powers be exercised in pursuance of Panchayat resolutions is effectively removed.
This amendment eliminates the traditional role of the Sarpanch and the elected Panchayat body in matters that directly affect village administration. Licensing and enforcement are no longer guided by democratic decision-making but are instead placed in the hands of a single administrative functionary. Such concentration of authority runs contrary to the spirit of decentralised governance that Article 243G was designed to protect.
The new right of MLAs to participate and vote in gram sabha meetings
The Bill also introduces Section 4A, granting Members of the Legislative Assembly and Members of the Zilla Panchayat the right to associate and participate in Gram Sabha meetings. Voting rights are extended to them where their names appear in the Panchayat electoral roll.
The Gram Sabha is constitutionally intended to be a body of the village electorate alone. It is not meant to be influenced by State-level political representatives. The inclusion of MLAs in the voting process alters the democratic character of the Gram Sabha and subjects village decision-making to external political influence.
Why this legislative interference breaches democratic autonomy
An MLA represents the interests of the State Legislature or the ruling government. When such a representative participates and votes in Gram Sabha proceedings, the possibility of conflict of interest arises. Even where the MLA belongs to the opposition, the independence of the village electorate is compromised. The Gram Sabha ceases to be a forum of direct democracy and becomes susceptible to political direction.
The doctrine of natural justice requires that an authority holding a significant interest in a decision must recuse itself. The House of Lords in Ridge v. Baldwin (1964), held that justice must be done and must also be seen to be done. Applying this principle to village governance, political representatives should not participate in Gram Sabha voting where their involvement creates an apprehension of bias. The Bill, however, legitimises their participation and weakens the democratic sanctity of the Gram Sabha.
The basic structure doctrine and the limits of legislative power
The Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) held that the basic structure of the Constitution cannot be altered. Democracy, federalism, and decentralisation form integral components of this structure. Panchayati Raj was constitutionalised precisely to give effect to democratic decentralisation at the village level.
If these constitutional values are treated as part of the basic structure, then legislation that centralises authority away from elected Panchayat institutions and into bureaucratic or political hands cannot be sustained. The proposed amendments therefore require close constitutional scrutiny.
Judicial precedents recognising panchayats as democratic institutions
In State of UP v Pradhan Sangh Kshetra Samiti (1995), the Supreme Court recognised Panchayati Raj as a pillar of democratic federalism. In Bhanumati v State of UP (2010), Panchayats were held to be institutions of grassroots democracy. In Vikas Kishanrao Gawali v State of Maharashtra (2021), local self-government was declared integral to democracy. These decisions confirm that village autonomy is not merely statutory but constitutional in character.
The 2026 Bill departs from this established framework by shifting decision-making power to the Secretary and by inserting political voting authority into the Gram Sabha.
Why the Bill should be referred to the select committee
Although the State Legislature has competence under Entry 5 of the State List to legislate on Panchayats, such power must be exercised consistently with Article 243G. Any amendment that weakens Panchayats as institutions of self-government is constitutionally suspect.
The present Bill proposes to centralise executive authority in the Secretary and to legitimise MLA voting within Gram Sabha proceedings. These provisions highlight a departure from constitutional norms and invite a serious question of validity.
Therefore, before the Bill is enacted, it is imperative that it be referred to the Select Committee of the Goa Legislative Assembly for legal and constitutional examination. Such scrutiny would determine whether the Bill is drafted in contravention of the principles of democratic decentralisation embodied in Part IX of the Constitution.
