“A penalty of one lakh rupees may sound substantial, but for a property that hosts premium destination events, it may not be enough to deter future violations. The Tourism Department has mentioned possible action under the Tourist Trade Act and even provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. These are serious options. But they only matter if applied decisively. Every year Goa issues stern warnings. Every year illegal setups appear on beaches. Without visible follow-through, rules become threats on paper rather than instruments of protection.
Yet enforcement alone is not the whole story. Goa already permits beach weddings, which means the demand is recognised and encouraged. The problem lies in the way permissions are handled. Resorts and planners often face multiple approvals from different departments.”
The uproar over the Mandrem wedding has laid bare a contradiction that Goa can no longer ignore. The state openly permits beach weddings and markets itself as a destination wedding hotspot, yet the permissions system remains so tangled and inconsistent that even established resorts struggle to navigate it. When a legal activity comes wrapped in complicated procedures, confusion becomes routine and violations become predictable. The latest incident in Mandrem is more than a case of one resort breaking the rules. It is a reminder that Goa needs a clear, disciplined and practical framework for an industry it actively promotes but poorly manages.
The anger intensified after a lavish wedding reception was held directly on the Olive Ridley nesting site at Mandrem. Music, lights and even fireworks disturbed the protected zone. Locals alleged officials were negligent as enforcement agencies arrived late or did not act firmly enough. The Tourism Department insisted it had granted no permission, but the damage to a fragile habitat had already been done. This goes beyond a paperwork lapse. It raises serious questions about how a full-scale event reached the stage of celebration on one of Goa’s most sensitive stretches without timely intervention.
The earlier November 17 violation involving Riva Beach Resort only adds to the concern. A Tourist Warden spotted the unauthorized setup. Tourism Police intervened. The resort was told to stop. Yet the wedding still went ahead. How does an event continue after two separate authorities have stepped in. Did the resort believe the consequences would be minor. Or does it point to an enforcement system that struggles to control situations once guests have arrived and preparations are underway.
A penalty of one lakh rupees may sound substantial, but for a property that hosts premium destination events, it may not be enough to deter future violations. The Tourism Department has mentioned possible action under the Tourist Trade Act and even provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. These are serious options. But they only matter if applied decisively. Every year Goa issues stern warnings. Every year illegal setups appear on beaches. Without visible follow-through, rules become threats on paper rather than instruments of protection.
Yet enforcement alone is not the whole story. Goa already permits beach weddings, which means the demand is recognised and encouraged. The problem lies in the way permissions are handled. Resorts and planners often face multiple approvals from different departments. Requirements overlap. Timelines shift. Conditions change unexpectedly. Permissions arrive late or with unclear instructions. Couples and planners expect certainty. Instead they encounter a system that feels unpredictable and unnecessarily bureaucratic.
This does not excuse the Mandrem violations. But it explains why resorts often push boundaries. Goa sells the dream of a sunset ceremony on the sand. It advertises itself as a destination where weddings feel effortless and scenic. But the regulatory process does not match the promise the state promotes. If Goa truly wants to benefit from destination weddings, shouldn’t the legal route be so clear and convenient that no resort is tempted to bypass it.
At the same time, simplification cannot come at the cost of the coastline. Notified and protected zones exist for a reason. Turtle nesting areas, dunes and erosion-prone stretches cannot be treated as event venues. But responsible tourism and environmental protection can coexist. Many coastal destinations around the world designate specific wedding zones, limit the number of events, enforce strict noise and lighting guidelines and deploy on-ground monitoring teams. These systems protect sensitive ecosystems while still supporting the tourism economy.
Goa can adopt a similar model. A single-window approval mechanism, fixed timelines, transparent criteria, and clear environmental safeguards would make compliance easier and violations less frequent. Resorts would know exactly where events can be held and under what conditions. Authorities would be better equipped to act decisively when rules are broken. And the public would have confidence that beaches are not being quietly handed over to private functions.
The Mandrem violations are symptoms of a larger structural failure. Goa permits beach weddings, but complicates them so much that enforcement becomes a seasonal contest rather than a consistent system. The state now faces a choice between continuing in this grey zone or building a clear, fair and environmentally responsible framework.
Simpler rules, stricter enforcement and transparent monitoring are not opposing goals. They are the only way to ensure that Goa’s beaches remain both accessible for tourism and protected for future generations.
