“What makes the present moment significant is the convergence of voices. Civil society groups, village communities, environmentalists and even sections of the political class have begun to articulate a shared concern: that the current framework may not be adequately protecting Goa’s ecological and social fabric. This is not merely a policy debate. It is about the kind of development model the state wishes to pursue.
However, to assume that Section 39A will simply be scrapped in response to rising criticism would be premature. Legislative provisions are rarely dismantled overnight, especially when they are embedded within a larger planning framework.”
The recent remarks by Droupadi Murmu, urging that “enough is enough” in the context of mounting concerns over land use and environmental degradation in Goa, have struck a chord far beyond ceremonial rhetoric. At a time when public anxiety over unregulated development is no longer confined to activists and experts, but shared widely by ordinary Goans, the spotlight has once again turned to Section 39A of the Town and Country Planning Act.
For many, Section 39A has come to symbolise a deeper unease about how decisions regarding land, ecology and community futures are being made. The provision allows for changes in land-use zoning under specific circumstances. In principle, flexibility in planning is not inherently problematic. Cities and regions evolve, and governance frameworks must respond to emerging needs. However, the issue in Goa is not about flexibility alone. It is about the manner in which such flexibility is exercised, and whether it aligns with the broader public interest.
Over the years, there has been a growing perception that Section 39A has enabled a pattern of ad hoc decision-making. Concerns have repeatedly been raised about the lack of transparency, limited scope for meaningful public participation, and the speed with which sensitive land parcels can be reclassified. When decisions of such long-term consequence appear to be taken without robust scrutiny, it erodes public trust in institutions that are meant to safeguard collective interests.
The President’s intervention, even if indirect, carries symbolic weight. It reflects a recognition at the highest level that environmental governance and sustainable development are not peripheral concerns but central to the country’s future. Goa, with its fragile ecosystems and unique cultural landscape, stands at a particularly critical juncture. The pressure from tourism, real estate and infrastructure expansion has already begun to strain its natural balance.
What makes the present moment significant is the convergence of voices. Civil society groups, village communities, environmentalists and even sections of the political class have begun to articulate a shared concern: that the current framework may not be adequately protecting Goa’s ecological and social fabric. This is not merely a policy debate. It is about the kind of development model the state wishes to pursue.
However, to assume that Section 39A will simply be scrapped in response to rising criticism would be premature. Legislative provisions are rarely dismantled overnight, especially when they are embedded within a larger planning framework. What is more likely, and perhaps more constructive, is a process of review and reform. This could include clearer guidelines on when and how the provision can be invoked, stronger requirements for public consultation, and independent oversight mechanisms to ensure accountability.
The real test for policymakers lies in their willingness to engage with the substance of these concerns rather than treating them as episodic dissent. If “enough is enough” is to mean anything, it must translate into institutional change. Cosmetic adjustments or selective enforcement will only deepen scepticism.
Goa’s identity has always been tied to its land — not just as a resource, but as a shared inheritance. Any legal provision that governs its use must therefore operate with the highest degree of transparency, fairness and foresight. Section 39A, in its current form, has clearly triggered a crisis of confidence. Whether it is ultimately repealed, amended or retained, the process must be guided by a genuine commitment to public interest.
The President’s words should not be seen as a conclusion, but as an opening. They have created an opportunity for introspection and course correction. It is now up to the state’s leadership to decide whether this moment will lead to meaningful reform or fade into yet another missed chance.
