In contrast to its zeal for religious preservation, the govt has remained conspicuously silent on equally pressing issue of land preservation
Heteroskedastic Quorums & Legislative Conformity
Recent legislative developments in Goa have drawn attention to the contrasting ideological directions of the State government. When the Goa Legislative Assembly reconvenes, the notion of a functioning quorum which was once indicative of democratic debate and deliberation currently appears increasingly heteroskedastic in nature, producing wildly divergent implications depending on the political content of the Bill under consideration. The ruling government, buoyed by a disproportionately represented majority, has exhibited a pattern of blind assent to Bills that align with the ideological leanings of the party in power. This has raised substantive questions about the robustness of legislative debate, especially where such legislation either curtails constitutional freedoms or undermines public interest through discretionary land conversion policies.
Anti-Conversion Bill - Constitutional Anxiety
The Chief Minister of Goa, during a recent public statement, expressed an intent to introduce an Anti-Conversion Bill in the State Assembly, invoking concerns over purported religious conversions. This announcement evokes constitutional scrutiny, particularly in light of Article 25(1) of the Constitution of India which guarantees all persons the right to freely profess, practise, and propagate religion, subject only to public order, morality, and health.
In Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (2018) 16 SCC 368, the Supreme Court emphasised the autonomy of individuals in choosing their religion or partner, reaffirming that constitutional morality supersedes societal morality. Therefore, any anti-conversion legislation would require rigorous constitutional justification. In a secular republic, the expression of faith must be protected unless there exists cogent, demonstrable evidence of coercion or undue influence. Blanket prohibitions on religious conversion even through voluntary means would potentially contravene the basic structure doctrine and violate individual autonomy.
Land Conversion Paradigm
In stark contrast to its zeal for religious preservation, the State Government has remained conspicuously silent on the equally pressing issue of land preservation. This silence was recently disrupted when the High Court of Bombay at Goa, in a judgment of far-reaching consequence, declared Section 17(2) of the Goa Town and Country Planning Act, 1974 to be unconstitutional. This provision had permitted discretionary land use changes by the Government without adequate checks, effectively allowing arbitrary conversion of land categories through executive fiat.
The Supreme Court of India, while entertaining a Special Leave Petition against the High Court’s Order, refused to stay its operation, thereby allowing the High Court’s reasoning to prevail in the interim. The High Court held that Section 17(2) violated Article 14 (equality before law) and Article 300A (right to property), owing to its excessive delegation of powers and lack of procedural safeguards. The judgment exposed how such provisions disproportionately benefitted a class of politically connected stakeholders, particularly within the real estate sector, and lacked environmental and public consultation protocols.
Discretionary Conversion & Real Estate Beneficiaries
The real estate industry in Goa has long been the hidden protagonist behind legislative moves on land. With land scarcity becoming a structural crisis, every conversion from agricultural to settlement or industrial use serves to inflate speculative interest and deepen the housing affordability crisis. Laws permitting land conversion without transparent regulatory oversight or environmental appraisal have served to benefit only a class of politically connected developers. A cursory review of recent Land Use Maps, Zoning Plans, and Planning and Development Authority (PDA) recommendations reveals an unmistakable bias in favour of projects that are high-end, non-local, and demographically exclusive.
Ideological Inconsistencies in Policy Formation
The juxtaposition of a proposed Anti-Conversion Bill aimed at regulating private acts of religious conscience, with the State’s determined efforts to re-legitimise land conversion statutes invalidated by judicial scrutiny, reflects a deep ideological inconsistency. On one hand, the government invokes cultural sanctity to justify restrictions on individual freedoms; on the other, it champions unregulated property conversion, benefiting a socio-economic elite. This contradiction is not merely rhetorical. It reveals a selective use of State power, one that seeks to surveil and penalise marginalised religious expression while granting unfettered privileges to commercial interests. The invocation of ‘Goan identity’ or ‘public interest’ appears contingent on who stands to benefit i.e. the citizen or the capital investor.
Judicial Oversight vs Legislative Overreach
The recent refusal of the Supreme Court to stay the High Court’s decision may be interpreted as judicial caution in the face of an aggressive legislative posture. When viewed through the lens of the Basic Structure Doctrine, this refusal signals a growing judicial awareness of the dangers posed by unchecked legislative delegation and executive discretion. Land conversion policies, if not regulated by strict procedural mandates and judicial oversight, risk eroding democratic governance by creating islands of privilege in a sea of exclusion. The revival of Section 17(2), or any legislative attempt to reintroduce unconstitutional land laws, would have to withstand the scrutiny of Articles 14, 21, and 300-A once again.
Conclusion- Rights Are Not Negotiable
The Goa Government’s dual approach: protecting religion by curbing conversion while deregulating land through discretionary statutes, creates a policy architecture that is internally incoherent and constitutionally dubious. In its urgency to assert ideological control, the State appears willing to trade constitutional freedoms for political capital. However, fundamental rights cannot be subject to majoritarian convenience. In a constitutional democracy, neither land nor religion may be converted without due process, transparency, and the consent of the people.
As Goa grapples with the twin pressures of demographic change and land commodification, its government must remember that legitimacy flows not from legislative quorums, but from constitutional fidelity.
