It was a momentous yet knot ty day for the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party. Its newly elected national pres ident was making his maiden visit to Goa to address party rank and file. Coincidentally, Chimbel villagers were pressing ahead with plans to hold a protest meeting at Azad Maidan, despite the government’s hasty an nouncement that two controversial projects would be shifted out of the Kadamba plateau site. Faced with this conundrum, the gov ernment invoked prohibitory Section 163, specifically to prevent the Chim bel protesters from organising their meeting in the capital. The villagers obliged by shifting their protest venue to Old Goa. In an order issued under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the North Goa Collec tor stated that there was a reasonable apprehension of law and order prob lems arising from the mega protest planned by the Chimbel villagers at Azad Maidan, Panjim, on January 30, until their demands were fulfilled.
The apprehension persisted despite the government’s decision to shift both projects out of Chimbel village. The Panjim Sub-Divisional Police Officer (SDPO) had re quested the Collector to impose prohibitory orders with in the Panjim police station jurisdiction on January 30 to avoid any untoward incidents or breach of peace and to maintain law and order. The order clarified that restrictions would not apply to public servants on duty, or to bona fide marriage or funeral processions or special occasions, provided these were gen uine and prior written permission had been obtained from the District Magistrate or SDM. All the same, photos and videos circulating widely left no one in doubt that the ruling party held a grand celebration in the heart of Panjim. BJP leaders and workers took out a procession from the head office of the Goa Urban Coopera tive Bank Ltd to the party headquarters after Nabin arrived in the city, before convening their meeting at the party of fice. The Opposition Congress and the Goa Forward Party (GFP) on Friday slammed the BJP for allegedly violating their own government’s prohibitory orders by taking out a procession and organising a well-attended meeting in the capital. Social media, too, was abuzz with outrage. “LAW MUST APPLY EQUALLY — OR IT MEANS NOTHING” was among the sentiments trending online. Victor Hugo Gomes, who runs a museum, posted on his Facebook wall: “…This is NOT A POLITICAL ATTACK — it is a CIVIC QUESTION: DOES THE LAW APPLY EQUALLY TO ALL, OR ONLY TO SOME? If prohibitory orders are necessary for law and order, they must be ENFORCED WITHOUT EXCEPTIONS — or PUBLICLY EXPLAINED if exemptions exist. DEMOCRACY CANNOT SURVIVE SELECTIVE ENFORCE MENT.” The ruling BJP, however, defended the event, stating that it was merely a brief welcome procession for their newly appointed national president and posed no law and order concern. Reacting to the incident, Goa Pradesh Congress Commit tee (GPCC) president Amit Patkar questioned the alleged violation of prohibitory orders. “How can the BJP violate prohibitory orders? We hope the North Goa Collector will act and file a complaint. If no action is taken, we will meet the Collector on Monday and demand the registration of a complaint against those who violated Section 163 of the BNSS in Panjim,” he said. Patkar further alleged selective enforcement of the law, stating, “The government denied Adivasi people permis sion to hold their protest in Panjim by imposing Section 163 of the BNSS. The need has now arisen to start another revolution like the Opinion Poll to defeat the BJP.” GFP president and MLA Vijai Sardesai also criticised the government, saying, “Section 163 applies to citizens, but exemptions exist for the powerful. Protests are banned in Panjim, yet a ruling party procession including the Chief Minister takes place. Is this the rule of law or Animal Farm governance, where some are ‘more equal’ than others?” Aldona MLA Adv Carlos Alvares Ferreira termed the North Goa Collector’s order prohibiting the protest at Azad Maidan by Chimbel villagers on January 30 as unconstitu tional. “It is a clear suppression of the fundamental right to peaceful protest. The excuse of apprehension of law and order is flimsy. Maintaining law and order is the responsi bility of the police and the State government,” he said. Ferreira questioned whether the decision was influenced by the BJP president’s visit, drawing a comparison with an incident during former US President Donald Trump’s vis it to Gujarat. “Is this not similar to hiding slums behind a wall? Is the BJP government trying to hide its sins whenev er a VVIP visits?” he asked. Echoing these sentiments, Chimbel Biodiversity Man agement Committee chairman Govind Shirodkar alleged double standards. “The government bends the rules when it suits them. They did the same with the Unity Mall project. We were told not to hold our meet in Panjim citing law and order issues, even though our protest has been peaceful for over a month,” he said. Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Goa president Valmiki Naik said, “BJP is using the law to restrict democratic protest. Why prohibitory order does not apply to BJP who held proces sion in Panjim? The ruling party thinks that it is above the law.” Responding to the criticism, BJP State spokesperson Sar vanand Bhagat said, “We did not organise a protest. It was a celebration to welcome our national president Nitin Nabin on his maiden visit to Goa. The procession was very short, and there was no law and order issue or any untoward in cident.
