While reminiscing about a research paper which is often cited in lectures on the subject of ‘Innovation’, the 1993 Working Paper by Allan N. Afuah and Nik Bahram of the Massachusetts Institute Of Technology (MIT), entitled: The hypercube of innovation, often comes to mind for theorising concepts that were way ahead of its time.
But what really stands out about the work of Afuah and Bahram (1993) even till this day is the forewarning about the complacency that human innovation shall satiate itself through marginally “incremental innovation”.
The concept of incremental innovation as described by Afuah and Bahram (1993) involves small, systematic changes that enhance existing processes or products rather than creating entirely new ones.
But then how would the incremental innovation described in Afuah and Bahram (1993) be applicable to governance by a state government in introducing a proposed amendment to an already existent code of laws through the Ordinance route with the approval of the Cabinet of Ministers?
Article 31 -A, insertion in the Code of Comunidades: According to late Adv MS Usgaocar in his ‘Concluding Note’ to the Translation of the Code of Comunidades which was first released on June, 2012: “Article 30 v, deals with the powers of the comunidades and Article 31 of the Code of
Comunidades, 1961, speaks about the tutelage over the action of the comunidades.”
And in paraphrasing the Chief Minister of the State of Goa: “The CM said that the amendment will introduce ‘Article 31-A’, which will debar a grantee, purchaser, or licencee of comunidade land from altering the use of the land and using it for purposes other than for which it was originally granted.” (TimesNewsNetwork, 2024).
Here, ‘incremental innovation’ is applicable because the proposed amendment to the Code of Comunidades, represents an improvement or an adjustment to an already established legal framework rather than a radical overhaul.
From an idealistic perspective, this would be similar to the iterative changes seen in incremental innovation, which are implemented to improve efficiency or adapt to the pragmatic reality in the state without major disruption.
The role of the Cabinet of Ministers in approving the ordinance could signify a closed, bureaucratic decision-making process that aims to push through legislative changes under the guise of aligning with its narrowly aligned policy objectives, thereby permitting it to effectively bypass public debate and allow the imposition of legislative modifications without meaningful scrutiny, all under the garb of timely adaptation within an inflexible legal system.
New provision reminiscent of
repealed TCP section 16-B?
Interestingly, the State cabinet just recently in the month of January, 2024 had approved a move to repeal the controversial 'section 16-B' from the Town and Country Planning Act, 1974. It may be recollected that Section 16B envisaged a “Change of zone in Regional Plan”.
What good is an insertion/amendment in the Code of Comunidades unless it is retrospectively applicable? An insertion or amendment in the Code of Comunidades without retrospective applicability might seem limited in scope because it would only address future situations of conversion of purpose of Comunidade land use, potentially leaving past grievances unresolved. Retrospective applicability is often desirable in addressing long-standing issues, providing justice for affected parties, or rectifying past errors.
Are environmentalists winning
with proposed Article 31-A?
The extent of the environmentalists "victory" will depend heavily on enforcement. If local authorities strictly uphold the intended restrictions, it could effectively deter misuse of community land and preserve the environmental and cultural values associated with it. On the other hand, without proper monitoring and adherence to these new rules, this amendment might risk becoming more of a legal formality rather than a practical instrument of environmental protection.
For illustrative purposes: The case of the Road atop the Baga Hill and the Comunidade of Calangute: Perhaps, it would be wise to introspect as to why did the Public Interest Litigation: PILWP 32 of 2019 fall to effectively reverse the proposed road leading upto the proposed Christ the Redeemer Centre and the said 8 metre road which was inserted by the NGPDA in the RP2021?
Even though the constructed road runs parallel to various properties earmarked as no development zones?
What is even more alarming is that the newly constructed road atop the Baga Hill runs through an Emphyteusis/Aforamento which the Comunidade of Calangute claims to belong to it although the Portuguese Title Documents vest in the ancestry of a prominent family of Advocates of the Calangute Village.
What good is an amendment to the Code of Comunidade vide insertion of the proposed Artigo 31-A unless the law pertaining to change of land use purposes of Comunidade land can be made applicable retroactively?
Obviously, the retrospective application of article 31-A would unearth the procedural lapses committed by the attorneys of the Comunidades, without which those deviant attorneys would not be able to retain their dynasty foothold over the said Comunidade, neither would the disproportionate assets of these attorneys ever come under the scrutiny of the enforcement directorate.
When will the amendment to the Codigo de Comunidades ever be able to hold the Comunidade Attorneys accountable to the Zonnkars of the respective Comunidade for the lavish lifestyles they enjoy with the blessing of the land mafia operating in the State of Goa.
At the most, the proposed Artigo 31-A only seems to be a tool to augment the going rate for obtaining favours from the under-regulated institution that now only represents the fossilised remains of an erstwhile colonial body for the regulation of land rights of the Portuguese colonial empire.
By focusing on small, gradual changes, governments may overlook opportunities for transformative solutions that could better address complex, evolving challenges. Incremental innovation can also create inefficiencies when piecemeal amendments accumulate without a cohesive strategy, potentially resulting in an inconsistent or convoluted legal framework.
