“Panchayats were conceived as institutions of self-governance. Sarpanchs and panch members are elected by villagers to represent their interests, debate development priorities, and take collective decisions. By shifting real authority away from them, the amendment risks turning these representatives into ceremonial figures, present for meetings but powerless in decision-making. The question being asked in villages today is simple and troubling: will sarpanchs now be mute spectators in their own panchayats?
Supporters of the amendment argue that vesting authority in the secretary will bring clarity, efficiency and accountability, especially in dealing with permissions and files. But this argument ignores the ground reality.”
The passage of the Goa Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Bill, 2026 by the State Assembly marks a decisive shift in how village governance will function. On paper, the changes are presented as administrative streamlining. In practice, they raise serious concerns about the erosion of grassroots democracy and the marginalisation of elected representatives.
The most contentious provision makes the panchayat secretary the sole authority to sign and deal with all permissions and official matters of the panchayat. This effectively centralises executive power in the hands of a government-appointed official, while elected bodies are reduced to an advisory role. For a system rooted in decentralisation and people’s participation, this is a fundamental contradiction.
Panchayats were conceived as institutions of self-governance. Sarpanchs and panch members are elected by villagers to represent their interests, debate development priorities, and take collective decisions. By shifting real authority away from them, the amendment risks turning these representatives into ceremonial figures, present for meetings but powerless in decision-making. The question being asked in villages today is simple and troubling: will sarpanchs now be mute spectators in their own panchayats?
Supporters of the amendment argue that vesting authority in the secretary will bring clarity, efficiency and accountability, especially in dealing with permissions and files. But this argument ignores the ground reality. Secretaries are transferable officials, often handling multiple panchayats, with limited connection to the local social fabric. Concentrating power in their hands without equally strong checks opens the door to misuse, arbitrariness and corruption.
Goa Forward president Vijai Sardesai’s warning that the change “turns governance upside down” cannot be dismissed as mere political opposition. His concern that illegality could be legitimised under the new framework deserves serious attention. When one individual controls permissions, the scope for pressure, favouritism or even coercion increases. Ironically, a law claimed to remove ambiguity may end up creating greater opacity.
Equally worrying is the broader message this amendment sends about trust. Instead of strengthening elected panchayats through training, transparency and clear rules, the government has chosen to bypass them. This suggests a lack of faith in grassroots leadership. Democracy is not just about efficiency; it is about participation, debate and accountability to the people. Stripping panchayats of authority undermines all three.
The amendment also allows four ordinary gram sabha meetings every month by reducing the notice period. While increased frequency of meetings sounds progressive, its value becomes questionable if decisions taken in gram sabhas can be overridden or diluted by a secretary’s authority. Gram sabhas are meant to be the soul of village democracy. If their resolutions carry little weight in implementation, more meetings will only mean more frustration.
The provision granting demolition protection to buildings reflected in land records and survey plans adds another layer of concern. Without strong local oversight, such protections could be misused to regularise questionable constructions. Again, the key issue is not intent but control. Who decides, who signs, and who is answerable if something goes wrong?
Defenders of the Bill point out that MLAs and Zilla Panchayat members are now allowed to attend and participate in gram sabhas. But participation without power risks becoming symbolic. The real influence lies with whoever holds the pen. In this case, that pen rests firmly with the secretary.
Goa’s villages are not administrative inconveniences to be managed from above. They are living communities with complex needs, histories and disputes. Panchayats have often been messy, slow and imperfect. But that messiness is part of democracy. The solution to dysfunction is reform and support, not centralisation.
The larger question remains unanswered: what safeguards exist to prevent misuse of power by secretaries? What grievance mechanism will villagers or sarpanchs have if decisions are taken against the collective will? Without clear answers, the amendment risks deepening distrust between the state and village institutions.
If this law truly aims to improve governance, the government must urgently clarify the role of elected representatives, introduce strong checks on the secretary’s powers, and ensure transparency in decision-making. Otherwise, the Panchayati Raj system risks becoming Panchayati Raj only in name, with real power quietly slipping away from the people it was meant to serve.
