For years, motorists using Dayanand Bandodkar Marg in Panaji have been bearing the discomfort of traffic gridlock, with the casino stretch proving to be a major bottleneck. Questions have been raised repeatedly about enforcement failures against business interests connected to the gaming industry.
Here is the irony. While local commuters and office-goers were reported to be routinely penalised for parking violations in the city’s inner lanes, the stretch along the Mandovi riverfront serving the casino industry seemed exempt from the same rules. Locals have been crying foul over vehicles ferrying casino passengers and staff regularly double-parking for extended periods and obstructing traffic. The contrast has fuelled public resentment and raised questions about selective enforcement, political influence and corruption.
A Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay at Goa, comprising Justice Valmiki Menezes and Justice Amit Jamsandekar, stepped in with a suo motu petition. After taking stock of the situation during peak evening hours, the Court issued a series of binding directions aimed at restoring order on D B Marg. It imposed a strict no-parking and no-stopping rule along the stretch from the petrol pump near Panaji Residency to the iconic Panaji Church, allowing casino-related vehicles to make only quick drop-offs at designated locations, including the Old Accounts Department.
The Bench also directed the Corporation of the City of Panaji (CCP) to install clear directional and warning signs within four weeks. Other measures included AI-enabled CCTV surveillance with automatic number plate recognition, more effective towing arrangements and a recommendation to barricade the stretch between Divja Circle and the Betim ferry wharf. The measures are due for review after a month.
A day after the court’s intervention, the sudden burst of police activity raises an important question: Will it lead to lasting change, or will it fade once the immediate pressure of judicial scrutiny eases? Panaji has seen enough instances of civic discipline slipping once official attention shifts. The police department, for its part, has repeatedly pointed to staff shortages, with the Panaji Traffic Cell reportedly operating at less than half its required strength. Personnel are also frequently diverted to VIP security and festival duties.
These constraints are real, but they do not fully account for the uneven application of traffic rules. Why were concessions given in this particular lane which was already a “no parking zone”? Did the traffic leadership need the court to tell them their job?
There is no denying that the casino industry contributes significantly to Goa’s economy. But its commercial importance cannot justify the unchecked use of public infrastructure at the expense of the general public. The traffic authorities have failed to hold powerful commercial interests to the same standards as ordinary citizens. Such double standards undermine public confidence in the fairness of law enforcement.
AI-enabled cameras, proper signage and continued judicial oversight can all help improve the situation. None, however, can substitute the intent behind policing. The real test will be whether these measures remain effective long after the initial enforcement drive and public attention have subsided. If the State government and traffic police treat the High Court’s intervention as a temporary response to mounting pressure rather than an opportunity to reform, the chaos could return sooner.
Panaji needs a collective will to enforce road discipline. Enforcement must realise that it’s a bounden duty to ease the burdens of common citizens, not to serve commercial interests that stand in violation.
