The Goa government’s push to approve cellphone towers on state-owned land within 67 days may look like a decisive step to improve connectivity, but the haste behind this policy invites serious scrutiny. The promise of fast approvals and “deemed permission” if officials miss the deadline sounds efficient on paper, yet it risks weakening public oversight, sidelining local bodies, and fostering distrust in communities already anxious about rapid, unconsulted development.
The intention is understandable. Goa has long struggled with patchy mobile networks, especially in rural belts where telecommunication companies hesitate to invest. A clear approval window and predictable costs are meant to encourage them to expand coverage. The state wants to cut bureaucracy, reduce delays, and create a smoother environment for digital infrastructure. But speed alone does not guarantee good governance. When policy is crafted in a way that compresses scrutiny, the consequences often surface later and become harder to fix.
One of the clearest fault lines in this policy is the shrinking role of local self-governance. Panchayats and municipal bodies have historically played a central part in deciding how land within their jurisdictions should be used. They are the closest tier of government to the people and best equipped to understand community sentiment. Under the new regime, their objections risk turning symbolic. If approvals become automatic simply because the 67-day clock runs out, the system effectively rewards administrative silence over thorough evaluation. Democratic participation becomes a casualty in the race to meet deadlines.
This is not an abstract worry. Goan villages have repeatedly pushed back against tower installations for various reasons. Some residents object because they feel left out of the decision-making process. Others fear that their neighbourhoods are being transformed without enough explanation. And many still worry about radiation from towers. Even when scientific bodies insist that emissions remain within permissible limits, fears persist. The state’s job is not just to point to regulations, but to bridge the gap between technical assurance and public perception. Fast-tracking infrastructure without early engagement only fuels suspicion.
Public health concerns, whether founded or not, deserve respectful handling. People want transparency. They want to know where towers will be placed, how tall they will be, and what safety checks will be in place. They want the confidence that the state is not cutting corners. Instead of creating mechanisms for open dialogue, the current policy depends on tight timelines and silence as consent. That is not the path to building trust in a state where environmental and land-use issues already spark intense debate.
There is also the delicate issue of land itself. Government land is a public asset, not a commercial commodity to be handed over casually. While tower installation fees may contribute to state revenue, the public has the right to know whether these returns justify the long-term occupation of land that belongs to them. Villages already face land pressure for housing, agriculture and community spaces. If telecom infrastructure is pushed through without evaluating long-term implications, Goa may find itself grappling with disputes that were entirely avoidable.
The automatic approval clause is particularly troubling. It shifts the system from proactive decision-making to passive greenlighting. Instead of ensuring that applications are examined thoroughly, it encourages the bureaucracy to treat inaction as compliance. A policy that depends on deadlines rather than due diligence makes it harder for citizens to challenge questionable approvals later. It creates an uneven playing field where telecom companies gain speed at the cost of democratic safeguards.
Goa can pursue better connectivity without sidelining its people. A more balanced approach would ensure meaningful involvement of local bodies, mandatory public notices, and clear communication about proposed tower locations and safety norms. Independent monitoring and periodic disclosure of radiation levels would help reassure residents. And a more thoughtful fee and land-use structure would ensure that public assets remain protected.
Connectivity is a crucial need. But governance is not a race to the fastest approval. It is a system built on trust, participation and transparency. Goa must remember that development earned through consensus lasts far longer than development pushed through haste.
