The Goa State Pollution Control Board’s (GSPCB) plan to install Online Noise Monitoring Systems (ONMS) at open-air restaurants and hotspots is a welcome move against the sound violations that are visible on the ground. The question is whether such an idea can yield results or whether it can actually help. It is very clear that tourism is the mainstay of Goa’s economy. The State’s selling point is party life or nightlife. The unfortunate part is that the State has been unable to maintain that delicate balance between business and tranquillity. Can online monitoring units change the game? No. And here is why.
The point of debate here is that detection systems are flawed. There are enough complaints of noise violations, and there are hundreds which are going unreported for the simple reason that there is helplessness and frustration over a repeatedly failing system. The prolonged High Court intervention has not helped because the entire system has been cohesive and works in a sync. Detection alone cannot beat the system if the ground-level enforcement is failing.
The GSPCB has recently sought Action Taken Reports (ATRs) from the police and district Collectorates on noise pollution complaints forwarded to them. There have been over 900 complaints between September 2025 and the end of January 2026, out of which 750 instances of violations were detected on the Real-Time Online Noise Monitoring Systems installed at 38 venues. While the board has received a few replies, the picture is still not clear on how many complaints have been acted upon. The Board claims that it has addressed letters to the police and Collectorates in October, December and January.
The draft report identifying over 30 hotspots with noise levels crossing 75 dB, some exceeding 100 dB, reflects the magnitude of the problem. The proposal to link ONMS to the GSPCB’s server with a features of automatic shutdown of music systems, and seamless data collection are excellent initiatives. But history suggests that technology alone cannot tackle deep-rooted enforcement issues. The technological monitoring system and everything associated with checking noise pollution will be futile if authorities lack the will to act decisively.
For example, while the Pollution Control Board Chairman’s tough talk on violations, highlighting the law in force, hardly mattered to the party organisers. The festive season and the extended weekends have seen music being belted till the wee hours of the following day. Reports exposed all-night trance music parties continuing unabated in areas such as Ozran and Anjuna even after repeated complaints. The Republic Day celebrations saw non-stop parties in the coastal north for almost three days. Goa’s party culture has redefined itself, and it appears that there is no stopping. It’s not about how many complaints are received or how many complaints have been forwarded for action.
Installing ONMS is a forward step, but it must be integrated in such a way that dependence on enforcement authorities is minimised. The Pollution Control Board may not have the jurisdiction to crack down on violators, but it has the powers to introduce systems that work on automation without human interventions. Technological advancements will help if the intent is genuine. Begin by clamping down on violators, closely monitoring open party venues, and leaving no scope for negotiations. The true test lies in translating monitoring into meaningful action.
