There is something fundamentally wrong with a system that can detect traffic violations through artificial intelligence but cannot inspire confidence about the safety of vehicles entering Goa. If technology is being deployed to monitor roads, identify offenders and issue challans, why are basic questions about vehicle checking at the Goa Karnataka border still being raised?
The recent visit to the Molem check post by the Goemkarponn team has exposed worrying gaps in the system that is supposed to monitor vehicles entering and leaving the state. What the team reportedly observed raises a larger question about the government’s priorities. Are AI cameras being installed to improve public safety, or are they primarily becoming instruments for collecting traffic fines?
Two days before the visit, Goemkarponn highlighted a vehicle spotted in Tivim without a proper number plate and with fully tinted glass. Such a vehicle naturally raises concerns about road safety, law enforcement and the ability of authorities to identify vehicles involved in criminal activities or traffic violations.
The obvious question was how the vehicle entered Goa. That led the team to Molem, one of the state’s important entry points.
What they reportedly found was disturbing. An AI based camera installed for vehicle monitoring was covered with plastic. No staff were visible at the checking point, and the explanation reportedly given was that the personnel responsible were not on duty at that time.
If these observations are accurate, they demand an explanation from the authorities. A camera that cannot operate because it is covered is not a safety mechanism. It is merely equipment occupying space. The presence of technology means little if nobody ensures that it functions when required.
The concerns did not end there. At the Excise Department checkpoint, the team observed four wheelers travelling towards Karnataka without being checked. When questioned, personnel reportedly said they had instructions not to check four wheelers. A superior officer, when approached, allegedly maintained that there was no rule requiring such checks. Vehicle checking reportedly began after the team raised questions.
These observations must be examined by the concerned departments. If there are legitimate operational reasons for not checking certain vehicles, the government should explain them. But if a major checkpoint operates without a clear and consistently enforced procedure, the public deserves to know why.
The RTO checkpoint raised further questions about staffing and accountability. The team reported finding no one at the desk initially, although one person was present inside a cabin. It also questioned the absence of an identity card, after which the person reportedly retrieved it from his car. Security personnel described different duties, including checking tender coconut carrying vehicles and assisting with RTO document checks.
None of these observations alone proves that every vehicle passes unchecked. Nor does every vehicle necessarily require a manual inspection. But together, they raise legitimate questions about coordination, supervision and the actual effectiveness of the system.
This is where the debate over AI cameras becomes important.
Artificial intelligence can help identify number plate violations, detect certain traffic offences, flag suspicious patterns and support enforcement. But cameras cannot replace a functioning enforcement system. They cannot independently guarantee that every vehicle entering a state is roadworthy, properly documented or compliant with the law. Their effectiveness depends on functioning equipment, reliable data, trained personnel and timely action.
If the government can deploy technology to identify motorists who violate traffic rules and issue challans, it must also demonstrate that the same technological investment contributes to public safety. Citizens cannot be expected to accept increasingly sophisticated surveillance and enforcement while basic questions about border monitoring remain unanswered.
The issue is not whether Goa needs AI cameras. It does. The issue is whether the government is measuring their success by the number of challans issued or by their contribution to safer roads and more effective policing.
The government must clarify whether the Molem cameras were operational during the visit, why the equipment was covered, what staffing arrangements were in place and what instructions govern vehicle checks at the Excise and RTO checkpoints. It should also conduct an independent inspection and publish the findings.
Goa cannot afford a system that looks modern on paper but raises doubts on the ground. The purpose of technology must be to prevent violations, improve accountability and protect lives, not merely to penalise motorists after an offence has occurred.
If AI cameras can watch every move of an ordinary motorist, why is there uncertainty about what happens at a major entry point into Goa?
That is the question the government must answer. Challans may generate revenue, but safety is the real test of governance.
