Goa assembly passes bill to curb touting at tourist spots; fines hiked upto ₹1 lakh
State Tourism Minister Rohan Kahunte on Friday (August 1, 2025) tabled the Goa Tourist Places (Protection and Maintenance) Amendment Bill, 2025, which aims to strengthen the 2001 Act by significantly expanding the definition of "nuisance" and increasing the fine limit to ₹1 lakh.
The bill was passed after a discussion, during which Khaunte said the legislation would curb unauthorised touting.
"There are agents for everything, and this bill is a positive step to regulate and eliminate touting activities," he said, highlighting the need for better regulation to protect tourists and maintain order.
The legislation has revised the definition of nuisance, which now includes a wide range of activities such as operating boats or floating objects causing danger or pollution, pestering tourists to buy goods or services, consuming alcohol or breaking glass bottles in unauthorised areas, cooking in open or non-designated areas, littering, conducting water sports or ticket sales from non-designated zones, unauthorised hawking, begging, or operating vehicles on beaches, and selling tourism services for locations outside the state without permission.
The new law also criminalises obstruction of free tourist movement and coercive sales tactics.
Under the amended section 10, violators will now face a minimum fine of ₹5,000, extendable to ₹1 lakh, and a punishment under section 223 (disobeying a public servant's order) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
The bill also introduces section 10A, which mandates a biennial review of fines by the government, allowing a revision of penalties by up to 10 per cent every two years, based on recommendations by the competent authority.
As per the statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill, the amendment was necessary in light of the rise in tourist footfall and growing instances of violations that have disrupted public order, degraded the environment, and harmed the tourism experience for both visitors and locals.
"This move aims to promote responsible and regenerative tourism in Goa while ensuring a safe, clean, and hospitable environment at tourist locations," it stated.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
2 minutes ago
- Indian Express
J&K Home Department ‘forfeits' 25 books: What does it mean?
The Jammu & Kashmir Home Department issued a notification on August 5, which categorised 25 books as 'forfeited'. These include political biographies, historical accounts and academic works set against the backdrop of the region's politics and history by authors like A G Noorani and Arundhati Roy. The notification has stated that these works carry 'false narratives' and propagate secessionist ideology by 'misguiding the youth, glorifying terrorism, and inciting violence'. It also said their continued circulation could influence the youth in ways that encourage alienation from 'the Indian state'. The move came on the sixth anniversary of the abrogation of Article 370, which, until August 5, 2019, granted special constitutional status to Jammu & Kashmir. Forfeiture is the legal mechanism, which, unlike censorship that modifies or withholds content, removes a book or printed materials from circulation entirely within a notified area. Once a forfeiture order is issued, the material can no longer be printed, sold, or distributed. Police officers are empowered to search premises and seize copies if they have reasonable suspicion that a banned book is stored there. The effect is immediate, thus making forfeiture one of the most direct tools available to the state in dealing with literature deemed unlawful. The notification relies primarily on Section 98 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which allows the state to forfeit any printed material (newspapers, books, documents) containing matter punishable under specific sections of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. This includes acts endangering the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India, promoting enmity between groups, matters intended to outrage religious feelings, among others. To act under Section 98, the government must form the opinion that the material meets these criteria, record its reasons and publish them in a notification. Note that while the Constitution's Article 19 (1) (a) grants all citizens the right to freedom of speech and expression, Article 19(2) permits 'reasonable restrictions' on the exercise of the right. This is permitted in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India; the security of the state; friendly relations with foreign states; public order; or preventing incitement to the commission of an offence. Forfeiture orders are examined against this constitutional framework. Those affected by such an order, or 'any person of interest', can challenge the notification in the High Court with jurisdiction over the area where it was issued. The Supreme Court has previously addressed similar provisions. For instance, in State of Maharashtra & Ors vs Sangharaj Damodar Rupawate & Ors (2010), the SC evaluated the validity of a notification issued under Section 95 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 98, BNSS) by the Maharashtra government. The notification had directed the forfeiture of 'Shivaji-Hindu King in Islamic India', a book written by James W Laine. The notification said that the book contained derogatory remarks about Shivaji and thus may cause enmity and violence among various communities. The SC laid down various factors that should be taken into consideration while issuing such a notification. These include whether the government has stated its grounds for opinion, and if those grounds are based on facts. The order of forfeiture should also be justified by the merits of the grounds mentioned. The apex court also said that the language and the content of the 'offending' material should be understood based on the intention of the author, and the subsequent impact on the readers. The government is not required to prove the offence beyond a reasonable doubt, but has the responsibility to show that the ingredients of the offence appear to be present, the court said.
Mint
a day ago
- Mint
Nishikant Dubey, Manoj Tiwari ‘forcibly' enter Jharkhand Temple's inner chamber, booked
BJP MPs Nishikant Dubey, Manoj Tiwari and others were booked for 'forcibly' entering the inner chamber of the Baba Baidyanath Temple in Deoghar on August 2 and hurting religious sentiments, Jharkhand Police said. A First Information Report (FIR) was registered under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) following a complaint by temple priest Kartik Nath Thakur for "forcibly entering the inner shrine between 8.45 pm and 9 pm' during the holy month of 'Shravan' due to the heavy influx of devotees. "An FIR has been lodged at Baba Baidyanath Mandir Police Station against Nishikant Dubey, Manoj Tiwari, Kanshikanat Dubey, Sheshadri Dubey and others for entering the inner shrine of the temple, hurting religious tradition and sentiments and causing obstacles in government work by entering into a scuffle with police persons deployed for security reasons," an officer said. According to the complaint, the 'forcible entry' by the MPs and 'scuffle' with policemen led to fear and panic among thousands of devotees present and a stampede-like situation. Thakur said the FIR was registered on August 7. He also claimed that both the MPs entered the inner chamber during the 'kancha jal puja' ritual, resulting in disruptions during the prayer. While both the MPs did not respond to phone calls, Nishikant Dubey took to X and said: 'This case has been registered for worshipping... So far 51 cases have been registered against me. Tomorrow, I will go straight to the police station from Deoghar airport for my arrest.' During the month of 'Shravan', thousands of devotees known as 'Kanwariyas' embark on a 105-km pilgrimage from Sultanganj in Bihar to Deoghar, Jharkhand, to offer holy Ganga water at the Baba Baidyanath Dham Temple, one of the 12 'Jyotirlingas'. About 55 lakh 'Kanwariyas' have offered holy water at the temple during the ongoing month-long 'Shravan Mela' so far. Additionally, about two lakh devotees offered obeisance through 'Shighra Darshanam' (fast track) facility. The shrine registered an income of around ₹ 7.5 crore between July 11 and August 5, which consists of revenue from other temple sources. On August 31, 2022, an FIR was registered against nine people, including both the BJP MPs, for allegedly forcing Air Traffic Control (ATC) officials to provide clearance for their chartered flight to take off from Deoghar airport beyond the scheduled time. As per the complaint, all the nine persons violated safety standards by entering the ATC room at the Deogarh airport and 'forcibly taking clearance' for the take-off. The FIR had resulted in a spat on social media between Dubey and then Deoghar Deputy Commissioner Manjunath Bhajantri, who has earlier, too, locked horns with him on many occasions. The Supreme Court in January had confirmed the quashing of the case of criminal trespass registered against the MPs and others for entering the ATC room at Deoghar airport.
India Today
a day ago
- India Today
Supreme Court notice to Centre on plea claiming BNS revived sedition law
The Supreme Court on Friday issued a notice to the Centre on a plea challenging Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which reintroduces the colonial sedition law previously codified as Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).The plea says that Section 152 of the BNS has "revived and repackaged" the sedition provisions in the IPC, after the Supreme Court had barred the filing of FIRs under Section 124A of the bench headed by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai issued notice to the Centre and tagged the matter with the already pending batch of cases challenging the erstwhile sedition law under Section 124A of the IPC. The sedition matters have been pending before the top court since 2021. In 2022, the Supreme Court also considered whether the issue was needed to be sent to a seven-judge Constitution bench, since there was a five-judge bench verdict that had upheld the offence of sedition to India Today TV, a lawyer connected to the matter said, The filing of the fresh plea was expected to speed up the hearing of the batch of petitions challenging the sedition law, which has remained pending and not been heard since September 2023. The central government assured the court that it would reconsider the law on sedition," the lawyer May 11, 2022, the Supreme Court ordered that 'no coercive action' be taken in sedition cases that remain pending while the government re-examines the the meantime, the IPC was repealed and the BNS came into effect on July 1, 2024. The pending petitions have not been heard in the fresh petition filed by retired Major General SG Vombatkere says that BNS Section 152 "repackaged" the sedition law despite the pause order from the Supreme Court and pending proceedings."The very petitioner had previously challenged Section 124A of the IPC in SG Vombatkere vs Union of India, leading to this court directing that all prosecutions under the said provision be kept in abeyance pending legislative reconsideration. However, Section 152 of the BNS is nothing but a repackaged sedition law, reinstated despite the pending challenge and suspension of Section 124A," the plea said."Section 152 criminalises a wide spectrum of expressive conduct, including those who 'purposely or knowingly' use words - spoken, written, electronic, symbolic or financial - to 'excite or attempt to excite' secession, rebellion or subversive activities. Its sweeping language, including phrases like 'encouraging feelings of separatist activities', fails the test of constitutional validity due to vagueness, overbreadth, chilling effect, disproportionate punishment and absence of proximate nexus to public disorder," the plea petition has gone into the various subclauses and provisions under Section 152 of the BNS, arguing that the "provision was unconstitutional for multiple and interrelated reasons, and must be struck down. "Each component of the section suffers from vagueness, overbreadth and arbitrariness, thereby violating Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21 of the Constitution," it said."It further submitted that Section 152 "impermissibly criminalised a wide range of expressive acts, including spoken, written, symbolic, electronic and financial communication, without satisfying the constitutionally mandated tests of legality, necessity, and proportionality under Article 19(2)".Additionally, the plea argued that the provision "employed ambiguous and undefined terms", which would have a "chilling effect on constitutionally protected speech".- EndsTune InMust Watch IN THIS STORY#Supreme Court
