By Adv. Shashank S. Narvekar
Councillor, Mapusa Municipal Council
The proposal to relocate three district courts from Mapusa to Merces has drawn strong resistance from the legal community and litigants. Though the government cites traffic congestion and parking scarcity as justification, the move appears poorly conceived and indifferent to its deeper impact on access to justice.
The earlier shift from Panaji to Mapusa was intended to bring the judiciary closer to North Goa. It significantly eased the burden on litigants from Pernem, Sattari, Bicholim, Bardez, and parts of Tiswadi. Over the years, Mapusa has become an efficient judicial hub serving a wide population.
A relocation to Merces would dismantle these hard-won advantages. Litigants, especially those from northern talukas, would face longer travel, higher expenses, and greater inconvenience, potentially deterring many from seeking legal remedies. This defeats the very principle of accessible justice.
The government’s reasoning, centred on congestion, reflects misplaced priorities. Urban traffic issues cannot be resolved by uprooting essential institutions. A more rational approach would be to decentralise non-essential administrative offices rather than displace vital judicial infrastructure.
The courts also sustain numerous small businesses, including law offices, stationery suppliers, printing centres, and retail outlets, which rely heavily on daily court activity. A shift to Merces would diminish Mapusa’s commercial vitality and disrupt this established economic ecosystem.
Equally troubling is the lack of transparency and limited consultation. Decisions affecting justice delivery demand rigorous scrutiny, not administrative haste. Even the rent already being paid for the existing premises must be considered before taking such a consequential step, along with the broader financial and logistical implications of relocation.
A sound path forward requires comprehensive urban planning and genuine engagement with stakeholders, including the legal fraternity, litigants, and urban planners. Only a transparent and balanced approach can protect public access to justice while addressing Mapusa’s infrastructural challenges.
The government must therefore reconsider the proposal with prudence and responsibility, ensuring that administrative decisions do not compromise the fundamental rights of the very people they are meant to serve.
