The sudden withdrawal of the contentious Goa Town and Country Planning (Amendment and Validation) Bill, 2024 that was tabled last week, legislation that would have given the Town and Country Planning Department unbridled powers over land decisions insulating them even from judicial scrutiny, is a welcome decision. However, the moment has exposed the hollowness of our system and the skewed mindsets of those at the helm.
While the TCP Bill was withdrawn, the decision to pull back three other bills which had no such controversy around them, came as a surprise. Also withdrawn are the Goa Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) (Amendment) Bill, 2024, the Goa Municipalities (Amendment) Bill, 2024, and the City of Panaji Corporation (Amendment) Bill, 2024. Was it disenchantment or resentment?
The new Bill sought to amend Section 19 of the original TCP Act to effect that ODPs remain valid even if the planning area they pertain to are withdrawn. Another section sought to grant finality to permissions for development granted by the TCP department and curtail the powers of other State authorities to question the permissions under State laws.
TCP Minister Vishwajit Rane’s change of mind may be attributed to objections put forth by key members of the BJP Core Committee which factored in the reactions pouring in from activists, environmentalists and social media. The Core committee members are reported to have reflected on the fallout of the amendment and its adverse impact on party prospects going into the next Assembly elections, with one member fearing that the party may be pushed to single-digit result.
The cabinet, subsequently, may have developed cold feet fearing a possible public outcry and prompted the minister to withdraw the bill, but it was the same cabinet that cleared it earlier. The chief minister heads the cabinet, and it is for him to explain why it was allowed in the first place. Also, the objectivity of cabinet decisions looks suspicious here, unless if cabinet decisions are taken according to situations and not entirely on the basis of the interests of the State. The Law department had cleared it too, with a customary note that it is in the interest of the government. How does it explain that, given the sensitivity of the issue it was dealing with?
While the decision to withdraw the Bill is good, the move to table it in the first place is questionable, especially against the backdrop of the bitter discourse that is going against land conversions under Sections 17(2) and 39(a). Members of the Legislative Assembly cutting across party lines spoke at length on the critical issue related to land conversions, hill cutting and parcels of land bought by real estate giants for creating housing projects in green zones.
Undoubtedly, withdrawing the bill is welcome, but it leaves some bitterness over the way it has ended, if at all it has ended here. Disabling the common citizen of his fundamental right to take legal recourse whenever an injustice has been felt is not only unfair but also against the precincts of freedom guaranteed to individuals. Disabling this freedom triggers suspicion of wrongdoing, and this is where lies the fear of common citizens who seek to defend Goa’s landscape.
Rane may have faced the embarrassment of withdrawing his bill at the eleventh hour, but the moment has also exposed a hollow system where the BJP core committee dictates the narrative from a purely political perspective overlooking the interest of the State. And it is unfortunate that people have no say in crucial legislations that impact the landscape of Goa.
