The Bombay High Court has urged state and civic authorities to make public participation, communication and transparency central to local decision-making, while suggesting community oversight committees to monitor and evaluate civic bodies. The observations were made during a hearing on a plea challenging a Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (NMMC) decision involving recreational open spaces in five redevelopment projects.
A bench of Justices Ajey S Gadkari and Kamal R Khata said civic participation strengthens citizens’ sense of ownership and responsibility towards the welfare of society. It also observed that democracy is strengthened when citizens can voice concerns and hold elected representatives accountable.
The court suggested that the state government consider establishing community oversight committees comprising relevant stakeholders. These committees, it said, could monitor and evaluate the activities of civic authorities and help ensure transparency and accountability. The court also asked authorities to honour the principles of communication and openness in their dealings with the public.
The observations came while the bench heard a plea filed by 73-year-old Navi Mumbai resident Sandeep Thakur. The petitioner had challenged the NMMC’s decision to grant five developers a concession from providing 15 per cent of their plot area as Recreational Open Spaces, in addition to podium gardens, during redevelopment.
Thakur sought the withdrawal of the concessions, arguing that they deprived residents of ground-level, open-to-sky recreational spaces. The High Court dismissed the plea as being without merit, saying the petitioner had failed to demonstrate perversity in the municipal corporation’s decision.
The bench noted that several factors weighed against the petitioner, including an alleged lack of expertise in the field, the selective targeting of five societies and what it described as a vague petition. The court also referred to the petitioner’s claim that replies to his Right to Information application were evasive and vague. The report said these circumstances lent credence to the authorities’ description of the public interest litigation as motivated by publicity.
Despite dismissing the plea, the court said state authorities must remain transparent in their functions and cannot “play hide and seek with the public”. It said civic authorities could convene meetings to address citizens’ concerns and local issues, discuss possible solutions, and create a platform for direct interaction between residents and elected officials.
The court also suggested that digital platforms could be used where physical meetings were not feasible. Such platforms, it said, could support the efficient redressal of civic issues and maintain dialogue between citizens and local authorities. The observations place communication and public access alongside formal decision-making in disputes involving redevelopment, open spaces and municipal concessions.
