“A one lakh rupee fine may appear heavy, but for a property that hosts high-end events it may not amount to a real deterrent. The department has mentioned possible action under the Tourist Trade Act and even provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. These are serious steps, but the larger question is whether they are genuinely applied or simply repeated each time a violation occurs. Goa warns resorts every season, yet illegal setups continue to appear on beaches. Without visible consequences, the cycle repeats.
But enforcement alone will not fix this problem. Goa already permits beach weddings, which means the demand is acknowledged. The issue lies in how the permissions are processed. Resorts often face multiple approvals from different departments. Requirements overlap or contradict one another.”
The controversy over the Mandrem wedding has exposed a contradiction that Goa can no longer ignore. The state permits beach weddings, yet the permissions system remains so tangled that even well-established resorts struggle to navigate it without delays, confusion or conflicting instructions. When rules are legal but the process is messy, violations become more likely. The Mandrem incident is not just about one resort breaking the law. It is a reminder that Goa needs a clear, practical framework for an industry it openly promotes.
Riva Beach Resort was penalised after officials halted an unauthorized setup on November 17 but the wedding reportedly went ahead. A Tourist Warden saw the preparations. Tourism Police intervened. The resort was told to stop. Yet the ceremony still happened. How does that occur after two layers of authority stepped in. Did the resort assume that paying a penalty later would settle the matter. Or does this reflect an enforcement system that cannot fully prevent an event once guests have gathered and arrangements are in motion.
A one lakh rupee fine may appear heavy, but for a property that hosts high-end events it may not amount to a real deterrent. The department has mentioned possible action under the Tourist Trade Act and even provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. These are serious steps, but the larger question is whether they are genuinely applied or simply repeated each time a violation occurs. Goa warns resorts every season, yet illegal setups continue to appear on beaches. Without visible consequences, the cycle repeats.
But enforcement alone will not fix this problem. Goa already permits beach weddings, which means the demand is acknowledged. The issue lies in how the permissions are processed. Resorts often face multiple approvals from different departments. Requirements overlap or contradict one another. Timelines are unpredictable. Permissions arrive late or with conditions that change at the eleventh hour. Couples expect simplicity. Event planners expect clarity. When the state provides neither, the temptation to bypass the system increases.
This does not justify the Mandrem violation. It does, however, explain why the industry keeps pushing the boundaries. Goa markets itself as a destination wedding hotspot. It sells the promise of a beach ceremony under the sunset. Yet the regulatory system does not match the aspiration the state itself promotes. If Goa truly wants to harness destination wedding tourism, shouldn’t the legal path be straightforward enough that no resort feels compelled to gamble with compliance.
At the same time, simplification must not come at the cost of the coastline. Notified stretches exist for environmental reasons. Dunes, turtle nesting zones and erosion-prone areas need protection. But responsible regulation is possible. Many coastal destinations designate specific zones for weddings, limit the number of events, mandate clean-up protocols and ensure on-ground monitoring. Such systems protect the environment while still accommodating tourism.
Goa could do the same. A single-window mechanism, fixed timelines, clear environmental guidelines and transparent criteria for approvals would make compliance easier and reduce violations. Resorts would know exactly where weddings are allowed and what conditions apply. Authorities would have firmer ground to take action when rules are broken. And the public would have confidence that beaches are not being quietly handed over to private events.
The Mandrem wedding is not an isolated offence. It is a symptom of a system that permits beach weddings but complicates them to the point where enforcement becomes a seasonal struggle. Goa must decide whether it wants a clear, fair framework or another year of grey zones where tourism demand and environmental protection clash again and again.
Simpler rules, stronger enforcement and transparent processes are not opposing goals. They are the only way to ensure that beach weddings remain both legal and responsible on a coastline that belongs to everyone.
