CLEOFATO ALMEIDA COUTINHO
In 1979, when I was in college, I remember an MLA’s house coming un der siege due to a rumour that he would be shifting to the ruling MGP. The siege was led by his campaign manager and election agent. We have not seen such public resistance to ‘defections’ in recent times, which is prob ably why some believe that Goa has no culture of pro tests at private residences. I also remember the houses of three prominent ruling Con gress MLAs being attacked, with protesters demanding they take a stand on Konka ni and convince their high command. Who says there is no culture of picketing at the private residences of those in power in Goa? The TMC protested out side Amit Shah’s residence. When Kejriwal was arrest ed, his supporters marched to the PM’s residence. The Maratha reservation agi tation took a violent turn as protesters targeted the houses and offices of legisla tors. Striking MSRTC work ers protested outside Sharad Pawar’s residence, accusing him of doing little during the MVA days. The CAA pro tests spilled onto the streets, while protests against the farm laws choked all entries into Delhi. Protesters frequently gather outside the Trump International Hotel and Tower in Chicago and other Trump-owned properties. In protests, there has rarely been a distinction between private and official residenc es. Picketing at residences is for the optics and the embar rassment to public figures. For too long, the opposition treated the TCP Minister with kid gloves. For the first time, thousands gathered at his residence, giving a much-needed boost to the anti-39A movement. In the 1859 Indigo Revolt, peasants targeted indigo planters. The Deccan Riots of 1875 escalated into attacks on the houses and shops of moneylenders in the Dec can region. Birsa Munda led tribal uprisings that target ed landlords. The Quit India Movement of 1942 resulted in attacks on residences as sociated with authority. The Malabar Rebellion also saw attacks on landlords. Injus tice over land issues and po litical disagreements, often marked by intense emotion, has historically led to pro tests that go beyond purely peaceful movements. In Goa, the issue is the State becom ing a poor image of itself due to land laws. These memo ries come to mind as Goa de bates over anti-39A protests reaching Dona Paula. India has not enacted any specific law prohibiting pro testers from targeting pri vate homes, although tres pass remains unlawful. In 2025, the UK restricted pro tests outside the homes of public office holders intend ed to influence them, making it a punishable offence with imprisonment of up to six months. A 2025 amendment in the USA prohibits pick eting near a federal judge’s residence to influence them. Our country has retained a balance between the right to protest and the right to privacy. The administration, however, can prohibit as semblies under Section 144 of the CrPC; protest move ments must be peaceful and should not become a nui sance to others. Yet move ments sometimes go out of control and turn violent when people feel contempt, helpless and despaired— when they believe their point of view will never be heard or accepted. The antidote to violence is dialogue and the willingness of authorities to engage with and adjust to differing viewpoints without heavy-handed treatment or hostile approach. The health of a demo cratic society is measured by the amount of dissent it tolerates. In the words of the Supreme Court, the right to assemble is beautifully captured in the eloquent statement that “an unarmed, peaceful protest procession in the land of ‘Salt Satyagra ha’, fast-unto-death and ‘Do or Die’ is no jural anathema. It hardly needs elaboration that a distinguishing fea ture of any democracy is the space offered for legitimate dissent.” Many believe that once laws are enacted, they can only be challenged in courts or modified or repealed in the legislature. Since the days of 16B, governments have been bulldozing legislation altering Goa’s demography as hundreds of apartments and villas are built for the wealthy from North India. With the elected government looking the other way, the re sponsibility of protecting the soul of Goa has fallen square ly on civil society. Our High Court has played its role in saving what remains of Goa. Courts and other institu tions are certainly necessary in a democratic system, but they are not sufficient to re strain an executive running amok. Whether in Goa, In dia, the USA, or elsewhere, courts’ role in democratic self-correction has not al ways been consistent. On liberty our apex court took 27 years. The highest court has been accused of stepping back when it comes to envi ronmental protection. The US Supreme Court’s disman tling of racial segregation in schools in Brown v. BOE was preceded by its validation of segregation in Plessy v. Fer guson. The judicial role in interpreting law must oper ate alongside a robust demo cratic culture and active par ticipation by vigilant citizens resisting anti-people laws. Courts have their own limi tations; they cannot blur the distinction between judicial review and administration. We live in democratic times when the role of the people is increasingly mini mised. People’s welfare appears to be the least concern of the elected, with democracy re duced to capturing power by hook or crook and retaining it by whatever means possi ble. Citizens are now expected to remain mute spectators as those elected enact unjust and arbitrary laws. A dra conian law remains in force until it is struck down. Ac cording to the Government, actions under 39A were legal, just as actions under 17(2) were considered legal until the courts intervened decisively. As the TCP began turning Goa into a concrete paradise, the people of Chimbel and Siridao showed courage by resisting on the streets. The 2011 Regional Plan and the SEZ projects were also defeated by street pro tests. A judge once said, “Goa is worth fighting for.” Let us not forget that democracy too is worth fighting for. (The writer is a Senior Advocate who taught con stitutional laws for over three decades)
