logo
Goa prof Sergio Carvalho's actions spurred rules for development on country's coasts

Goa prof Sergio Carvalho's actions spurred rules for development on country's coasts

Time of India04-06-2025
By Claude Alvares
Sergio Carvalho, who passed away in Goa on April 27, 2025, at 83, was not a politician, not a bureaucrat, and not an environmental activist in the formal sense.
Yet his actions in 1987 led to the creation of one of India's most significant environmental regulations — the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification of 1991.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
An academic at Nirmala Institute of Education in Panaji, Carvalho was alarmed when central govt reduced the no-development buffer along India's coastline from 500m to 200m of the high tide line (HTL) to promote tourism.
This move came at a time when Goa was beginning to attract direct charter flights and investors eager to build beach resorts. One such resort — Ramada — was already under construction on the pristine Varca beach.
Upon obtaining a letter from the Union environment ministry, issued under the newly enacted Environment Protection Act, 1986, Carvalho found that the resort's construction violated several provisions. It exceeded height limits, was tapping groundwater in a prohibited zone, and had built structures within 200m of the HTL.
Carvalho penned a letter to the high court, which issued a notice. But when Carvalho realised he would have to argue the case himself, he approached the newly formed Goa Foundation.
The foundation reached out to Indira Jaising, a well-known public interest lawyer, who agreed to represent the case. In court, Jaising faced Justice Gustavo Couto, who promptly stayed the Ramada construction, observing that it prima facie violated the environment ministry's guidelines. She was then asked to file a formal petition.
Thus began Sergio Carvalho v. Union of India, a landmark case challenging central govt's decision to reduce the no-development zone, and the specifics of the Ramada project — its height, use of groundwater, and proximity to the sea.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
The final hearing came up in Dec 1988 before a division bench headed by Justice M L Pendse, a judge known for balancing development interests with legal rigour.
Pendse ruled that Indira Gandhi's 1981 letter mandating a 500m no-development zone was not law but merely executive guidance. Ramada's main building, meanwhile, rose to 24m, far beyond the permitted 9m.
The company argued that it had misunderstood the regulation, interpreting the height limit as applying 'up to the eaves' — a loophole the environment ministry later legitimised via an office memorandum, effectively saving the structure.
The court appointed Goa's first chief town planner (then retired) as commissioner. His report confirmed multiple violations: excessive height, tube wells drawing groundwater, and unauthorised structures within the 200m zone.
However, the commissioner also offered an ecological rationale: the 200-metre strip typically housed primary sand dunes critical to coastal stability. He endorsed a 200-metre no-development buffer.
The court accepted this reasoning and incorporated it into its ruling. Though the hotel's main building was spared, Ramada was ordered to dismantle all structures within the 200m zone and shut down groundwater extraction. The space above the 9m height was declared unusable for commercial purpose.
Despite these partial victories, the HC ultimately dismissed the petition. Carvalho's appeal to the Supreme Court was also unsuccessful.
On paper, he had lost; but he had planted the seeds of a national policy.
In the wake of the judgment, Jaising drafted a model notification under the Environment Protection Act, which the Goa Foundation submitted to the environment ministry.
Around the same time, the Bombay Environmental Action Group submitted its own version. These efforts culminated in the CRZ notification, issued on Feb 19, 1991.
The CRZ notification was revolutionary.
It formalised a no-development zone of 200m from the HTL, imposed strict guidelines for construction within 200-500m, and banned groundwater extraction within the entire 500m stretch.
For the first time, India's entire 7,000km coastline came under a uniform legal framework to manage and restrict development.
Though the original notification was revised over the years, its core principles are intact. The CRZ rules have guided coastal development across India, all because one Goan professor decided to act.
Carvalho never took credit for the tidal shift his letter created. But on this World Environment Day, it is worth remembering that environmental protection often begins not with power or position, but with a simple sense of responsibility — and the courage to act.
(The writer is an environmental activist)
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Centre ready to send additional NDRF teams to State in view of heavy rain forecast: Kishan Reddy
Centre ready to send additional NDRF teams to State in view of heavy rain forecast: Kishan Reddy

The Hindu

time15 minutes ago

  • The Hindu

Centre ready to send additional NDRF teams to State in view of heavy rain forecast: Kishan Reddy

The Centre is ready to send additional National Disaster Response Force (NDRF) teams to Hyderabad and Telangana if necessary in view of the heavy rain forecast for the next couple of days, informed Union Minister of Coal and Mines G. Kishan Reddy on Wednesday. Mr. Kishan Reddy, also Secunderabad MP, has dialed Union Home Minister Amit Shah to inform him about the weather forecast and requested him to send extra NDRF teams. Mr. Shah is reported to have told him that already some NDRF teams have been put under the State government control and more will be sent depending upon the situation. The Minister urged citizens to move from low level areas likely to become flooded, avoid travel unless required, stay away from water bodies, power equipment and not to open manholes. With the heavy rains upstream, the Musi river has been receiving heavy inflows and this could have a cascading effect in certain districts and the twin cities too. Meanwhile, Telangana BJP president N. Ramchander Rao stated that the party cadre is ready to assist the government in providing help in the areas likely to be inundated due to the heavy rains forecast till the weekend by the MET department. The party cadre will be assisting the authorities concerned in helping people move from the potential flood zones, supplying food packets, drinking water, essential medicines and others, he said. Welcome CBI probe In a separate press release, the party chief has welcomed the Supreme Court's decision to transfer the probe of the daylight murder case of lawyer advocate couple Gattu Vaman Rao and his wife P.V. Nagamani in Peddapalli district in 2021 to the CBI and reiterated his demand to introduce an 'Advocate Protection Act'. The verdict is a clear indication of the growing public distrust in the State investigating agencies and the Apex Court's decision would strengthen public faith in the judicial system besides serving as a strong warning to those who indulge in such attacks on lawyers, he added.

Savarkar Defamation Case: Rahul Gandhi Tells Court He Faces Threat to Life, Cites Complainant's Lineage
Savarkar Defamation Case: Rahul Gandhi Tells Court He Faces Threat to Life, Cites Complainant's Lineage

The Wire

timean hour ago

  • The Wire

Savarkar Defamation Case: Rahul Gandhi Tells Court He Faces Threat to Life, Cites Complainant's Lineage

The application also cited two public threats, one by Union Minister Ravneet Singh Bittu calling Gandhi the 'number one terrorist of the country' and another by BJP leader Tarvinder Singh Marwah. New Delhi: Lok Sabha Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi on Wednesday (August 13) told a Pune court that he faces threat to life in wake of his recent political battles and the lineage of complainant Satyaki Savarkar in the defamation case filed against him. Gandhi urged the special MP/MLA court, where the defamation case is being heard, to take judicial notice of the matter. Gandhi said that he has 'grave apprehensions' to his safety and to the fairness of proceedings in the case,' reported Bar and Bench. He also sought "preventive protection" by State. 'Preventive protection is not only prudent but is a constitutional obligation upon the State," it was stated in the application filed through advocate Milind Dattatraya Pawar. Gandhi said that the application was filed as a 'protective and precautionary measure for safeguarding the fairness, integrity, and transparency of the present proceedings.' Gandhi's application stated that in a written statement filed on July 29, Satyaki Savarkar had categorically admitted that through his maternal family lineage, he is a direct descendant of Nathuram Godse and Gopal Godse, the principal accused in the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi. The fact that Satyaki Savarkar has also claimed descent from Vinayak Damodar Savarkar was also noted in the application. "Given the documented history of violent and anti-constitutional tendencies linked to the complainant's lineage… there exists a clear, reasonable, and substantial apprehension that Shri Rahul Gandhi may face harm, wrongful implication, or other forms of targeting,' stated the application. Gandhi's plea said that the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi was not an act of impulse; rather it was the calculated outcome of a conspiracy, rooted in a specific ideology, culminating in deliberate violence against an unarmed person. 'In view of the grave history associated with such lineage, the defence harbours a genuine and reasonable apprehension that history must not be permitted to repeat itself,' the submission to the court stated. The application also spoke about Gandhi's recent political interventions including the August 11 slogan 'Vote Chor Sarkar' in parliament along with the submission of documents alleging electoral irregularities, actions, which he claimed, have triggered hostility from political opponents. His plea also referred to Gandhi's speech in parliament in which he said, "A true Hindu is never violent. A Hindu cannot spread hatred. The BJP spreads hatred and violence, and you do not represent Hindus.' Gandhi also said in his submission how immediate press conferences were held by Union Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw and BJP MP Sudhanshu Trivedi who accused him of insulting the Hindu community and lowering the dignity of his position. The application also cited two public threats, one by Union Minister Ravneet Singh Bittu calling Gandhi the 'number one terrorist of the country' and another by BJP leader Tarvinder Singh Marwah. The Court will hear the matter next on September 10. The case pertains to a speech delivered by Gandhi in London in March 2023 in which he had reportedly referred to Savarkar's writings about an incident where Savarkar, along with others, allegedly assaulted a Muslim man – a situation Savarkar supposedly found 'pleasurable.' Satyaki Savarkar had filed the defamation case against Gandhi in 2023, claiming that no such incident about Savarkar is mentioned in his works. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments. Advertisement

Complainant Godse's kin: Rahul Gandhi claims threat to life over Savarkar remark
Complainant Godse's kin: Rahul Gandhi claims threat to life over Savarkar remark

India Today

time2 hours ago

  • India Today

Complainant Godse's kin: Rahul Gandhi claims threat to life over Savarkar remark

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi on Wednesday told a Pune court that he faces a threat to his life from the complainant in a defamation case related to his remarks on Vinayak Damodar his application, Gandhi said he has 'grave apprehensions' about his safety due to 'recent political issues raked up' by him and his earlier comments on said that the complainant is a direct descendant of Nathuram Godse, the assassin of Mahatma Gandhi. He alleged that there is a 'documented history of violence and anti-constitutional tendencies linked to the complainant's lineage.'advertisement The defamation case stems from Gandhi's comments on Savarkar made on November 17, 2022 during his Bharat Jodo Yatra at a rally in Maharashtra's Akola district. Gandhi allegedly referred to Savarkar as a "British servant" who received a pension from the colonial government.'There exists a clear, reasonable, and substantial apprehension that Rahul Gandhi may face harm, wrongful implication, or other forms of targeting,' the application further said, 'There is a history of violence associated with the complainant's lineage. History should not be allowed to repeat itself,' in reference to Mahatma Gandhi's also claimed that his 'vote chori' allegations have provoked his political opponents. He said he has received 'two public threats' from BJP leaders, one from Union Minister Ravneet Singh Bittu, who called him the 'number one terrorist of the country,' and another from BJP leader Tarvinder Singh Satyaki Savarkar had earlier filed a criminal defamation case against Gandhi, objecting to alleged derogatory remarks made against V D Savarkar during a public address. At the time of filing, Savarkar submitted a CD and a transcript of the speech as supporting material.- EndsTune InMust Watch

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store