When a whistleblower from within the police force exposes systemic wrongdoing in the department, allegations of corruption can no longer be brushed aside. The representation submitted to Goa's Home Department and Chief Secretary, detailing alleged institutional cover-ups, arbitrary disciplinary action, and extortion within the Traffic Police, paints a disturbing picture. It suggests a mismanaged system where junior personnel are swiftly punished, while those with influence or money power enjoy protection.
In October 2024, covert recordings made by a visitor to Goa exposed traffic personnel allegedly accepting bribes at multiple locations across Goa. In action that followed, officers in Anjuna and Porvorim were promptly suspended for taking money between Rs 200 and Rs 300. But when four personnel attached to the high-profile Calangute Traffic Cell were allegedly caught on camera demanding Rs 10,000, accountability took a different path.
According to the whistleblower, a Rs 6 lakh fund was pooled by officers, including a Police Inspector, a Constable, and a Home Guard to derail disciplinary proceedings. If these charges are proved, they point not to isolated misconduct but to a deeply entrenched protection network operating behind the facade of traffic enforcement.
This incident does not appear to be an isolated episode. The allegations point to a wider pattern of selective action. In Ponda, viral videos showing corrupt practices reportedly remained unaddressed for over a month. In another instance, an officer who had conducted the preliminary inquiry into a GPay fraud case while serving as Deputy Superintendent is said to have continued overseeing the matter after becoming Superintendent of Police, declining to recuse himself before ultimately clearing subordinates.
When conflicts of interest are overlooked and basic procedural protocols, such as the right to cross-examine witnesses, are denied in departmental proceedings, internal disciplinary systems are reduced to a farce. They risk becoming instruments of selective punishment and institutional self-protection rather than impartial justice. In the past, many of those facing internal inquiries have been reinstated within a few months, raising questions over the fairness of such probes.
For Goa, where tourism is the backbone of the economy, allegations against policemen carry consequences far beyond the department. Traffic personnel are often among the first enforcement officials encountered by domestic and international visitors. When roadside checks are perceived as opportunities for extortion, it damages Goa's reputation itself. Sadly, those who are virtually ambassadors of the State are the ones responsible for tarnishing its name.
The Home Department's decision to direct the Director General of Police to examine the complaint is a necessary beginning. But an internal inquiry alone is unlikely to inspire public confidence when the allegations themselves extend to senior levels of the force. A police organisation cannot credibly investigate accusations of systemic misconduct involving its own leadership without raising legitimate concerns about impartiality.
What is needed is an independent, time-bound investigation conducted by a body that is beyond the influence of the police hierarchy. Necessary action should be initiated immediately, pending inquiry. This case points to deep-rooted corruption, and hence the DGP cannot allow it to fester. There are several good officers in the force, some who have gone beyond their call of duty. A few rogue officers should not be allowed to taint the entire force.
The government must act with urgency, not only to establish the truth behind these allegations but also to dismantle any culture of patronage, bribery or extortion that may have taken root. Anything less will only reinforce the damaging perception that money power does play a big part in traffic policing.
