Days after the conclusion of the Monsoon session of the Legislative Assembly, the chinks in the BJP armour have begun to show. In a statement that created some unease within the party ranks, Calangute MLA Michael Lobo publicly criticised the BJP-led government over the withdrawal of several bills. "It is shocking that despite having a clear majority with 33 MLAs so many bills have been withdrawn. It feels like "all is not well", and this has not gone down well with the public who have been following the proceedings", Lobo stated while raising concerns over the government's decision-making process and accountability.
Quick on the heels of Lobo's statement, two senior members of the Cabinet, had divergent views on the subject. Tourism Minister Rohan Khaunte blamed it on the Law department saying it has to understand the sanctity of placing a bill in the House. "We need a total turnaround in our Law Department", he thundered. On the flip side, Law Minister Aleixo Sequeira defended his turf. "It is our duty to ensure whatever bills come in are as per law. Withdrawal of bills is not done at our instance", was his retort. Lobo's statements have not gone well with BJP State President Sadanand Tanavade either, who said that the party is not a "Dharmashala" and that protocols of redressal need to be followed.
Lobo may not be wrong in saying that "all is not well" on the withdrawal of bills, but the context in which he said it was completely out of place and raises suspicion of a vested interest. In the normal course, an initial draft of the bill is done by the Department concerned at the behest of the Minister, it is then sent to the Law Department which examines it, makes necessary tweaks to ensure it fits into the legal framework and sends it back to the Department. The minister then presents it before the cabinet for approval following which it is tabled in the House.
The contentious Goa Town and Country Planning (Amendment and Validation) Bill 2024 which has been at the heart of this debate, went through all those processes and even got the cabinet's approval before being tabled. The withdrawal exposes two aspects: One, the failure of the Law Department to turn down the amendment knowing fully well that it would not stand the test of courts and people's scrutiny. Second, the intent of the Department to equip itself with unbridled powers overriding even the last resort of common citizens -- judiciary.
The bottom line is that there is a systemic failure where the minister proposes and the law department disposes. It is a sorry state because it is amply clear that the Law department does not enjoy authority and independence. It is also clear, that the bills were withdrawn not because there was a belated realisation that they were bad in law, but because ministers believed political careers would be hit.
At the outset, Chief Minister Pramod Sawant faces the monumental task of setting the house in order and ensuring ministers don't throw their weight around and sabotage systems. All said and done, it is a healthy sign that the government retracted questionable bills because, against the narrative that the treasury benches are bulldozing through key legislations by their brute majority, a message has been sent across that the government is respecting democracy, at least in some measure.
