MAPUSA
While the recent submission by Amicus Curiae Advocate Nigel da Costa Frias to the High Court of Bombay at Goa provides a detailed framework to prevent and regulate noise pollution across the State, it has inadvertently reignited a debate that goes beyond the courtroom – the chronic failure of enforcement authorities to implement existing legal provisions and judicial directives.
The list of recommendations submitted by the amicus is comprehensive, spanning from establishing flying squads and mandating CCTV surveillance to enforcing decibel limits and penal actions against violators.
However, many of these suggestions are not novel. They echo directions already issued by the High Court over the past few years and principles embedded within the existing legal framework, including the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, and the somewhat archaic Madhya Pradesh Control of Music and Noises Act, which Goa follows in the absence of state-specific legislation.
AUTHORITIES SIDESTEP IMPLEMENTATION
Local residents and activists argue that the core issue is not the absence of rules, but the dismal implementation of those already in place.
“What the amicus has compiled is indeed exhaustive and sound on paper, but almost all these conditions already exist either in High Court directions or within current law,” said Jawish Moniz, a resident of Anjuna.
“The problem is that every authority — be it the police, GSPCB, or local administration — is finding creative ways to dodge implementation. Either complaints are not registered, or they’re deflected, delayed, or diluted.”
Multiple coastal residents echo similar concerns. In Vagator, a known hotspot for nightlife, residents allege a pattern of superficial compliance by law enforcement.
“If we complain that a particular club is blasting music beyond hours, the police will note it down. But then they tip off the club, asking them to tone it down before the inspection. By the time the patrol arrives, the music’s off and the report says all is fine,” a resident said, requesting anonymity for fear of retaliation.
REPEAT OFFENDERS GO UNCHECKED
Another resident pointed out that many clubs and restaurants operate with near impunity.
“There are clubs that have been booked four or five times for playing music beyond permissible limits. But has anything changed? Has anyone been arrested or seen the inside of a jail cell? No,” said Dr Inacio Fernandes, one of the crusaders against loud music in Anjuna.
Cases are booked, show-cause notices are issued, and occasionally, an establishment is "sealed". But the next night, many are back in business.
"They throw a party the very next day, mocking the very law that was supposed to shut them down. It’s a cycle of tokenism," said another resident from Morjim.
POLITICAL NEXUS, ECONOMIC STAKES
Behind this impunity lies a larger problem – an entrenched nexus between establishment owners, enforcement officials and the political class.
“These clubs are raking in crores every season. There’s slush money involved, and no one wants to touch the goose that lays the golden egg,” a local said bluntly.
“That’s the reason enforcement is lacklustre. You can have ten more reports like the amicus’ and nothing will change unless there’s political will to act,” he added.
The complicity, whether active or passive, of political actors has been flagged by citizens and activists time and again. Licensing loopholes, selective crackdowns and reluctance to pursue stringent penal action all add up to a systemic failure that no amount of new guidelines can fix.
GAP BETWEEN LAW, ACTION
While the amicus curiae’s efforts to structure a long-term framework are commendable, they may have missed the real elephant in the room – the gap between law and action.
A former member of the Goa State Pollution Control Board noted, “What’s required isn’t more laws or guidelines. It’s accountability. Until an officer is penalised for failing to act, or a violator actually goes to jail, all this remains an academic exercise.”
As the High Court now evaluates the amicus suggestions, it may also need to reflect on whether closing the ongoing contempt petition – without enforcing the spirit of its earlier orders – will amount to yet another judicial paper trail that names the violators but fails to punish them.
In the end, the core question remains unanswered: Who will bell the cat?
HC-appointed oversight: A possible solution?
With institutional accountability eroding, some residents are calling for stronger judicial intervention – not just in the form of directions, but through active oversight.
“We’ve reached a point where the only way out is to have a court-appointed officer whom we can directly approach when the system fails us,” said an affected resident from Calangute.
“We can’t keep filing contempt petitions every few months. This madness has to stop,” he added.
Some legal observers believe this may be the only viable interim solution until enforcement agencies regain public trust.
“If local police stations cannot maintain integrity, perhaps an independent monitoring mechanism under court supervision could bring some respite,” a senior High Court advocate opined.
