A replacement or an expansion
It has recently been announced that a new casino vessel has been introduced into the River Mandovi. The Captain of Ports has defended the move by stating that the vessel complies with the prescribed rules relating to size, amplitude and passenger capacity, and that it represents a replacement of an existing licensed vessel rather than the grant of a fresh licence.
Yet, while the administrative position may rest on technical compliance, the introduction of a visibly larger and more modern vessel into the heart of Panaji has inevitably revived deeper constitutional questions. When the physical presence of offshore casinos in the capital city continues to expand or evolve, even under the guise of replacement, the legal architecture governing their operation deserves renewed scrutiny.
The question is not merely whether a vessel meets navigational specifications. It is whether the broader regulatory framework remains constitutionally coherent when examined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Reasonable classification under Article 14
Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. It permits reasonable classification, provided two tests are satisfied: first, that the classification is founded on an intelligible differentia; and second, that the differentia bears a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved.
Under the Goa, Daman and Diu Public Gambling Act, 1976, as amended, entry into casino gaming areas is restricted to “tourists”, thereby expressly excluding residents of Goa. The legislative object has been articulated as the protection of local families from gambling addiction and associated social harm. The intelligible differentia is clear: tourists may enter; residents may not. The rational nexus is said to lie in shielding the local population while promoting tourism.
This classification has been upheld by the High Court in earlier challenges. The constitutional validity of restricting Goans from entering casino gaming floors has therefore been judicially recognised. However, equality analysis does not conclude merely because a classification has once been upheld. It must be assessed in the evolving factual context in which it operates.
When new vessels are introduced and casino operations remain prominently situated in the centre of Panaji, the lived consequences of the activity continue to be borne by residents who are statutorily excluded from participation.
Burden without participation
While residents of Goa are prohibited from entering casino gaming areas, the ecological and civic consequences of casino operations are experienced locally. The Mandovi River serves not only as an anchorage point for offshore vessels but also as a vital ecological and economic artery. Concerns have been repeatedly voiced regarding effluent discharge, fuel emissions, corrosion of hulls, and the long-term ecological impact on river water quality.
It has been argued that biomagnification effects arising from pollutants may affect fish populations downstream and ultimately those who depend upon river resources. Whether these concerns are scientifically substantiated in each instance is a matter for expert evidence. However, the constitutional point remains distinct. The resident population, while excluded from lawful participation in gaming activity, remains exposed to the environmental footprint of that activity.
If a class of persons is excluded for protective reasons, it becomes incumbent upon the State to ensure that they are not simultaneously subjected to unmitigated externalities arising from the very activity from which they are barred.
Advertising and constitutional transparency
A further dimension emerges in the sphere of advertising. Across highways and arterial roads of Goa, casino advertisements are prominently displayed. They invite passers-by to test their luck, to participate in raffles, to win luxury vehicles, and to experience entertainment. These advertisements are visible not merely to tourists but to residents who traverse these roads in the course of daily life.
Little is stated on such billboards regarding the statutory prohibition on residents entering casino gaming floors. The invitation appears universal. The exclusion is silent.
In analogous contexts, such as tobacco products, statutory warnings are mandated to ensure informed awareness. The purpose is not moralising but transparency. Similarly, it may be argued that if casino operations are lawfully restricted to tourists, then advertisements placed within mainland Goa ought to carry a clear and visible statement that entry of residents is prohibited under existing law.
Such disclosure would not undermine the legislative scheme. Rather, it would reinforce the intelligible differentia already recognised by statute. It would highlight that the activity is tourist-centric and not inclusive of local participation.
Under Article 226, the High Court possesses wide powers to issue directions to statutory authorities. A directive requiring the Department of Tourism, the Gaming Commissioner, and the Captain of Ports to ensure such disclosure in advertisements would fall within the realm of regulatory oversight.
Judicial oversight in a changing context
The question is not whether tourism should be promoted, nor whether gambling should be permitted offshore. Those are legislative choices.
The question is whether, in implementing a tourist-only regime, the State must ensure that its regulatory practice remains coherent with the equality clause.
If residents are excluded in order to protect them, that exclusion must be made transparent. If advertisements continue to blanket highways and public spaces without reference to the statutory bar, then the classification risks appearing selective in enforcement and ambiguous in communication.
A requirement that all casino advertisements prominently state that residents of Goa are prohibited from entry would neither expand nor restrict the statutory scheme. It would simply render visible the classification that already exists in law.
In the aftermath of the introduction of a new vessel in the Mandovi, such clarity may serve not only constitutional fidelity but public trust. Equality before the law is not violated by reasonable classification. It is violated when classification is obscured, selectively communicated, or inconsistently experienced.
The River Mandovi may continue to host casino vessels within the bounds of licence conditions. Yet the constitutional waters in which they operate must remain clear.
