That the Goa Government is weighing options to get around the National Green Tribunal’s CRZ stricture comes as further proof that court orders and guidelines by regulatory bodies will never be applied in toto and are open to debates with timely changes sought in the restrictions recommended. For instance, the Supreme Court’s order on highway liquor ban. The court’s ban on the sale of liquor in vending outlets and bars within 500 meters of highways created a furore with stakeholders being the most affected by the draconian law, pressuring respective State Governments to help them circumvent the order. As States, which would feel the brunt of the directive the most, Goa and Kerala were expected to be at the forefront of the ‘dissent’ against the order. A loss of livelihood for the vendors and an unwarranted intrusion into the social customs of Goans were cited as reasons for the demands for lifting the restrictions, or at least ‘diluting’ the severity of the ban in the State. Amazingly, consumption of alcohol never once featured as a reason for lifting the ban.
Accused of judicial overreach, whenever the courts decide to arrest debauchery within the society, vested interests waste no time questioning the validity of the restraints imposed. Accusing the judges of resorting to a rather questionable form of judicial lawmaking, the courts have never been appreciated for acting in public interest. Even Governments have no compunctious over approaching ‘appropriate legal forums’ seeking amendments to orders by regulatory bodies like the NGT over issues that would otherwise hold up urgent and necessary works. It would, hence, appear that searching for lacunas in orders issued to bypass judicial limitations imposed reflects a growing trend among State Governments.