A state cannot demolish one set of unlawful constructions while facilitating another under the veneer of central approval
Recent developments in Goa’s legal and political landscape have brought to the fore a compelling constitutional paradox. On one hand, the High Court of Bombay at Goa, through its judgment in Suo Motu Public Interest Litigation, has ordered a crackdown on illegal constructions, reiterating that ecological sanctity and statutory land use regulations must prevail over political leniency or administrative inertia. On the other hand, the Union Government, acting through the Inland Waterways Authority of India (IWAI), has granted permission for a private jetty to be constructed at Malim on the Mandovi River despite vocal opposition by the local panchayat and the area’s elected representatives.
In its recent judgment, the High Court of Bombay at Goa invoked the statutory framework of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, the Goa Town and Country Planning Act, and relevant environmental legislation to denounce a culture of unauthorised construction. The judgment called upon District Collectors and panchayats to initiate ground level inspections, conduct geo tagging, and invoke demolition powers where applicable under law.
The jurisprudence adopted by the Court is grounded in the doctrine of constitutional morality. It emphasises that legal enforcement cannot be selective. The protection of Goa’s land and ecological integrity requires not just legislative clarity but judicial will. This sentiment is constitutionally anchored in State List Entry 18, which grants states legislative competence over land, including the preservation of agricultural zones and regulation of building permissions (Constitution of India, 1950).
Contrast this with the events unfolding at Malim. In early April 2025, the IWAI issued a digital No Objection Certificate for the construction of a private jetty for yacht mooring. The Union Government cited its powers under Entry 24 of the Union List (navigation and shipping on national waterways) and Entry 97 (residuary powers) to justify this approval. The Mandovi river was declared National Waterway 68 in 2016, and under the Major Port Authorities Act, 2021 and the National Waterways Act, 2016, the Union assumes jurisdiction over infrastructure intended for navigational and tourism purposes (Press Information Bureau, 2025).
Yet, the Centre’s move did not go unchallenged. The local panchayat of Penha de França and Goa’s Captain of Ports have raised objections, asserting that the IWAI approval bypassed state level consultations and ignored existing Memoranda of Understanding that require joint approvals. The sarpanch of the village categorically stated that no construction will be permitted without the consent of the gram sabha. The Tourism Minister of Goa, who also represents the area, expressed dismay at not being consulted.
Herein lies the contradiction. While the High Court seeks to reinforce statutory compliance and environmental accountability, the Union Executive, by invoking its overriding jurisdiction over inland waterways, permits a project that arguably disregards the same principles. It questions the coherence of India’s federal structure and whether the principle of subsidiary where governance decisions are taken at the lowest effective level is genuinely respected in matters of land use and development.
The Indian Constitution establishes a scheme of governance in the Seventh Schedule through three lists: Union, State, and Concurrent. While land and municipal governance fall squarely under the State List (Entries 5 and 18), subjects like national waterways and major ports lie in the Union List (Entries 24 and 27). The Malim jetty project, which affects both land and riverbank use, seems to occupy the fuzzy intersection of these constitutional domains. However, no entry in the Union List authorises the Centre to override state level environmental statutes or building regulations. In the absence of a direct conflict between laws under Article 254, the primacy of local regulations must logically prevail (Seervai, 2013).
Furthermore, the Court’s mandate in the demolition case is not discretionary, it is interpretative and supervisory. The judiciary is enforcing existing laws passed by the Goa Legislative Assembly. The Union Government, in contrast, is exercising executive discretion based on delegated legislation. The risk, then, is clear: if centrally approved constructions proceed without state environmental clearance or panchayat approval, it may pave the way for the legitimisation of parallel regulatory frameworks, thereby undermining judicial authority and democratic decentralisation.
Environmental law adds a further layer of constitutional complexity. Though the Environment Protection Act, 1986 is central legislation, the power to enforce it especially in relation to Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) clearance requires state level coordination. The proposed jetty falls within a tidal zone and may impact fisheries, traditional navigation routes, and river ecology. According to Entry 17 B of the Concurrent List, environmental protection and conservation are shared
responsibilities. This reinforces the requirement of procedural compliance with both Union and State frameworks, including approvals under the Goa State Environment Impact Assessment Authority.
A question also arises as to whether the IWAI’s permission alone constitutes a sufficient legal basis for construction. If the local body withholds consent or if the panchayat refuses to grant construction licence under the Panchayat Raj Act, the project may be vulnerable to judicial review. In that event, the High Court could be compelled to intervene once more this time to weigh in on whether a centrally approved project can supersede the very statutory mechanisms the Court has already directed to be enforced in other contexts.
When judicial orders aimed at upholding the law are permitted to be undercut by executive discretion even if lawfully exercised the legitimacy of both is compromised. The people of Goa are entitled to expect consistency in governance. A state cannot demolish one set of unlawful constructions while facilitating another under the veneer of central approval.
The doctrine of federal comity implies not just a division of powers but mutual respect between institutions. If the High Court of Bombay at Goa can hold the state accountable for lapses in statutory enforcement, then the Union Government too must ensure that its developmental priorities do not erode local laws or democratic processes.
