Casinos and gambling have been contentious issues in the State since the first offshore casino was opened in Goa. Political parties across the spectrum have been either for the casinos or against them depending on which side of the Assembly they were seated at that particular point of time. It is common knowledge that parties that opposed it when out of government had a different view when they were running the State. With the political class ambivalent on the issue, for the detractors of the casinos and gambling, the recent submission by the government in the court, and which was accepted by the bench, may come as ammunition to use in their fight against casinos.
The State government claimed in the High Court of Bombay at Goa that the law banning Goans from entering offshore and onshore casinos is to protect them from its ‘vices’. This submission was made during the hearing of a writ petition that had challenged the government’s decision to keep Goans from entering casinos. The court has ruled in favour of the ban finding it does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution and that the State government decision to ban entry of Goans is justifiable for the reasons advanced. Advocate General Devidas Pangam’s submission was: “This is a reasonable distinction we have made to protect the Goan people from the vices of this casino. It (restriction) has been there for a long time… We are doing it for the welfare of the people and to avoid any loss to the people of Goa.” The court agreed with the government and observed that the decision of government is a conscious decision, considering its evil consequences on its subjects.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
What this submission of the government implies is that casinos bring with them vices. To be clear, this is not a new revelation, but the statement from the government in the court amounts to an admission from the State that casinos are associated with vices and that the government is attempting to protect the people of the State from them. There is also another sentence, that keeping Goans out is being done to avoid losses to the people, another admission that the government is aware that gambling can result into financial loss. This leads to the question of why does a government that sees casinos as vices and leading to losses keep pampering the business?
This is now entirely a question of morality, as legally, there is a different dimension, with the State having denied that the amendment to the Goa Daman and Diu Public Gambling Act amounted to a violation of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, as the petitioner had claimed that this was discrimination and banning Goans from entering the casinos was a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the court ruling that it there is no violation. The decision settles the question of whether Goans will be allowed into casinos or not.
The logic of the government in this appears to be that as long as Goans do not get caught in the vices and do not lose their money, having casinos in the State is fine. So, can this submission in court give new impetus to the movement that has been advancing arguments against casinos in the State? The government has never appeared to be in the mood to close or even shift the casinos from their current location. Financial investments is the argument from the government for the former, while seeking a site for the relocation is what it says when asked about the latter, leaving the promise of relocation of the casinos still not fulfilled.
