Abstract

Over the centuries, the bountiful waters of the Mahadayi have sustained sui generis ecosystems, forests, and wetlands that form a UNESCO World Heritage Site. However, in 2018, the Mahadayi Water Dispute Tribunal (MWDT) passed an award that paves the path for the abstraction and diversion of precious freshwater, through a series of ill-conceived irrigations and hydroelectric river projects, that will ultimately destroy the Mandovi River Basin and the Gomantak. While the MWDT has looked at the river as a commodity to be apportioned and ignored the estuarine region, the casino cartels have managed to occupy the mouth of the river with seven “offshore” casinos and convert almost the entire riverbank of the capital city of Panjim into the unofficial casino capital of India. This conflicting reality contravenes the Public Trust Doctrine and is a problem not just for Goans and the state of Goa but also an issue of international significance. This chapter provides a possible solution to the evolving river conflict by applying the Public Trust Doctrine and the emerging jurisprudence on legal animism, in the hope that this might help save the Mandovi river and avert catastrophe.

No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it is not the same river and he is not the same man —Heraclitus

A sacred spring of precious fresh water, from deep within the womb of Mahamaya or Great Mother Earth, rushes to the surface at a village, now known as Kankhumbhi, creating a fountain of life that is a lifeline for the sacred Sahyadris or Western Ghats, and, for the Gomantak or Mandovi River Civilization and the people of Goa. As it flows westward this monsoon-fed river grows and combines with countless brooks, streams, rivulets, and rivers to form the mighty Mahadayi in Karnataka. It briefly enters Maharashtra, where it is called the Mhadei, and eventually calms its currents to become the graceful Mandovi River in the state of Goa. As the Mandovi meanders through the sacred Sahyadris it naturally terraforms the topography. Over the centuries its bountiful waters have formed exquisite tropical riparian forestlands, Myristica swamplands, wonderful wetlands and natural harbours that have impacted the history of Goa.

In more recent times, however, the intrinsic value of the river seems to have been set aside. This became especially evident on 14 August 2018 when the Mahadayi Water Dispute Tribunal passed an Award that permitted the abstraction and diversion of water, from the west-flowing Mandovi river basin into the east-flowing Malaprahba river basin, through a series of ill-conceived irrigation and hydroelectric river projects. For the people of Goa, the majority of whom worship Mahamaya and her sisters as representations of Shakti or Mother Earth, the MWDT’s award is not just a death sentence for the Mandovi and the entire riverine region but effectively also for the primordial Mandovi River Civilization or Gomantak—the land fed by the river. The MWDT ignored ecological concerns and overlooked the lack of reliable data and the socio-cultural traditions and and customs of the locals and instead, treated the Mandovi like a commodity, ordering a distribution of river water using a regressive hydrological model of damming and diversion. This regressive approach is contrary to the Public Trust Doctrine, a foundational principle of jurisprudence according to which our natural heritage is not a mere possession but rather to be held in a sacred trust by the government for the collective welfare of the present and future generations (Sax 1979). It disregards global environmental protectionist policies and laws and therefore has no place in the spatial planning and sustainable development of the 21^st century. Rivers and freshwater are not valuable solely as commodities or natural resources—they have intrinsic value.

There is an innate interconnection between the sacred Mandovi and the people of Goa. The Mandovi is not just a river and this is not just another inter-state river dispute. This understanding is consistent with the faith invested in rivers in India. Rivers are worshipped as sacred entities, testified to by the attendance of millions at the recent Mahakumbh celebrations (13 January–26 February 2025). However, the MWDT and water policy in general look at rivers as a natural resource to be harvested and used to generate hydroelectric energy. This is dystopian, and perhaps why the MWDT has only considered the river up to the weir in Ganjem, (located in Usgao village in Ponda) and has ignored the Mandovi River Civilization and life as we know it. Fortunately, the award of the MWDT was immediately challenged before the Honourable Supreme Court of India by all three contesting state parties. This itself is ex facie evidence of injustice or the lack of judiciousness in the award. And so, there is still hope for justice, and time to save this sacred river and magical gift of Mahamaya.

It may be useful here to look at what the law says about rivers and commons.

From the Lens of the Law

The Ancient Romans had a maxim called res communes omnium (things common to all) predicated on the principle that ‘things common to mankind by the law of nature are: air, flowing water, the sea and seashores.’ These elements are held by the sovereign in trust, in accordance with the Public Trust Doctrine, for the free and beneficial use of the public. The reason is that the air, seas, rivers, marshlands, forests, etc., are all gifts of nature, and therefore, should be freely available to everyone irrespective of social status. Because, they are of such a great importance to the people collectively, it would be wholly unjustified to make them a subject of private ownership. Once inscribed into the Institutiones of the Corpus Juris Civilis, enacted by Justinian I in 534 CE.,¹ res communes omnium has since become a fundamental principle of law. The maxim has consistently evolved over the last 1,500 years, through laws and jurisprudence, to firmly recognize, ordain, and protect community property.

Furthermore, the Public Trust Doctrine finds expression in the thirteenth-century English legal documents Magna Carta of 1215 CE, where it is used to secure the right to navigate the kingdom’s rivers unimpeded, and the Carta de Foresta (Charter of the Forest) of 1217 CE, which grants “liberties of the forest” and customs traditionally enjoyed freely by the people omnes de regno nostro (“to everyone in our realm.”)² Therefore, there is a long legal precedent for considering river systems, including riparian forests and entire riverine regions, as common or community property collectively held in trust so that, the people can enjoy the right to free access and beneficial enjoyment of this community property.

At the turn of the twentieth century, Professor Joseph L. Sax (1979, 4) writing in the backdrop of the modern state, adapted a version of the Public Trust Doctrine (PTD) to exert long-term public rights over short-term private rights and interests and to secure the rights of future generations by imposing three restrictions on the powers/authority of the sovereign trustee, i.e.:

1. The property subject to the trust must not only be used for public purposes, but also must be held freely available for the use and enjoyment of the general public.
2. The property held in trust cannot be sold, even for fair cash or its equivalent in value.
3. The property must be maintained in particular types of existing traditional

Thus, the Public Trust Doctrine mandates that community property must only be used for public purposes and must be made available for the use and enjoyment of the public. It cannot be sold, even for fair cash or its equivalent. And it must be maintained in consonance with the particular types of traditional existing uses.

Legal Animism and the evolution of the Public Trust Doctrine

There is also an emerging jurisprudential trend of “legal animism,” where rivers and natural “living entities” are being recognized as having a distinct “juristic personality,” with the right to maintain their spirit, identity, and integrity. This is not a novel concept as it is based on the PTD, theology, and natural and customary law.

In 2008, Ecuador amended Article 71 of its Constitution to state that nature “has the right to integral respect for its existence and for the maintenance and regeneration of its life cycles, structure, functions and evolutionary processes,” thereby recognizing the right of the natural world to the same protection as people and corporations. Furthermore, on 30 March 2011, the Provincial Court of Loja, Ecuador applied the principles of legal animism to Pachamama and recognized her locus standi.³ Consequently, the natural rights of Los Cedros (a Protected Forest in northwestern Ecuador) and the Vilcabamba river were recognized under Article 71 of the Ecuadorian Constitution and planned river projects were halted.

Similarly, in 2017, the legislature of New Zealand enacted the Te Awa Tupua Act, declaring the Whanganui River a juristic entity and recognizing her intrinsic value to the Whanganui Maori and Iwi Tribes who consider the river an ancestor and follow the creed of Ko au te Awa, ko te Awa ko au (“I am the River and the River is me.”)

In the Indian context, on 20 March 2017, the High Court of Uttarakhand declared the Ganga and Yamuna rivers juridical persons, like Hindu deities, which had both rights and obligations (Mohd. Salim v. State of Uttarakhand 2017). And, the local government was, in loco parentis,⁴ obligated to promote the health and wellbeing of the rivers, in consonance with Articles 48 and 51A of the Constitution of India. The High Court even proposed an alternative solution of giving the guardianship rights and obligations to the traditional communities living along the river or customarily associated with the river. However, four months later in July 2017, the judgment was surprisingly struck down by the Supreme Court as “unsustainable in law” (State of Uttarakhand v. Mohd. Salim 2017).

Conversely, in 2024, a Constitutional Court in Peru dismissed the State’s appeal against the Nautu Provincial Court ruling in favour of the Huaynakana Kamatahuara Kana, a federation of women of the Kukama people (an indigenous group residing primarily in the Peruvian Amazon) who petitioned to declare the Maranon river a living being with rights, because of its intrinsic value. To the Kukama the river is a ser vivo(living, organic being) and home to different forms of life. They believe that their first ancestors were born from the river and that their dead return to live in the river. And so, the Maranon is the vertebral column that articulates Kukama culture and identifies their people to life adjacent to and in the river.

According to the judgment of the Constitutional Court of Peru the Maranon River and all its tributaries now hold and have the following inherent legal rights:

• The right to flow
• The right to exist in and support a healthy ecosystem
• The right to flow free from all contamination
• The right to feed and be fed by its tributaries
• The Right to biodiversity
• The right to be restored
• The right to the regeneration of natural cycles
• The right to the conservation of its ecological structure and function
• The right to protection, preservation, and recovery

Similarly, the Atrato, Plata, Tolima, Cauca, Pance and Otun rivers in Columbia; the Magpie in Quebec, Canada; the Snake and Klamath rivers in the United States of America, and all rivers in Bangladesh are now legally considered “living persons” with the right to exist, flow, flourish, evolve and regenerate, free from pollution and contamination. Furthermore, the draft Universal Declaration on the Rights of Rivers, acknowledges that, rivers are essential to all life and play a vital role in the functioning of the Earth’s hydrological cycle (Rights of Rivers 2024). It also clearly acknowledges the dependence and impact of humans on rivers and therefore proposes to:

• Declare that all rivers are living entities that possess legal standing in a court of law
• Declare that every river is entitled to the following fundamental rights: The right to flow

The right to perform its essential functions within its ecosystem The right to be free from pollution

The right to feed and be fed by sustainable aquifers The right to native biodiversity

The right to regeneration and restoration.

• Ensure a healthy watershed and the health of all ecosystems and natural beings within a river basin
• Appoint legal guardians of a river, with at least one being an indigenous representative, to act on behalf of the river for the full and proper implementation of these rights
• Resolve that all states shall implement these rights in full and develop integrated watershed assessment agencies, with adequate govern-mental and financial assistance, to monitor, regulate and ensure a healthyriver

These examples are not isolated incidences of legal innovation, but are, representative illustrations of an emerging jurisprudence. In fact, legal animism is an evolution of the Public Trust Doctrine and the preeminent need to preserve and protect the natural world and the communities that inhabit the biosphere. Rivers and their fragile ecosystems are particularly vulnerable to the climate crisis. Therefore, we can no longer afford to treat them as natural resources to be exploited through an archaic modus operandi of careless abstraction. Therefore, legal animism is a step towards achieving climate resilience and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) articulated by the United Nations (2015).

The Indian Perspective

The Public Trust Doctrine is well recognized in India and has been interpreted and applied by courts to hold that community property like seashores, rivers, air, forests, ecologically fragile lands, etc., are all held in trust by the State as a custodian, and that the people are the beneficiaries of this community property (M.C. Mehta vs. Kamal Nath 1997, para. 34). The Supreme Court of India has gone a step further by holding that the Public Trust Doctrine imposes an affirmative duty on the State to protect the people’s common natural heritage and stating that the State can exercise this authority over community property only in consonance with the purpose of the trust (Tirupathi vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 2006).

Furthermore, the Supreme Court has, in a landmark judgment originating from Goa, held that at the heart of the doctrine are the imposed limitations and obligations on the government agencies and the implicit embargo on the State from transferring public property to a private party, if such transfer affects public interest (Fomento Resorts vs. Minguel Martins 2009, paras. 53–54). Also, Article 39(b) of the Constitution enjoins the State to direct its policies towards securing the ownership and control of the material resources of the community and to so distribute them to best serve the common good. Therefore, the government cannot alienate, degrade, or divert community property.

Although the concept of common good has many diverging definitions and contradictory applications, it is an important part of jurisprudence because it is critical when reflecting on the public and private dimensions of social life in a country. Therefore, it must always be interpreted to mean the greatest good for the greatest number.

The Directive Principles of State Policy postulate the creation of a legal and socioeconomic system that addresses inequalities, and ensures freedom of opportunity, dignity, and a healthy life. Article 48A of the Constitution also imposes a specific obligation on the government to protect and improve the environment and safeguard the forest and wildlife of the country.

Therefore, the Public Trust Doctrine or PTD was not an alien concept to Indian Constitutionalism when the Supreme Court first applied it to demolish a private resort belonging to Kamal Nath—a politician and Member of Parliament—because it blocked the flow of the mighty Beas river—one of the sacred rivers of the Sapta Sindhu. The courts have consistently held that the aesthetic use and the pristine glory of natural resources, the environment, and the ecosystems of our country cannot be permitted to be eroded for private, commercial, or any other use unless the courts find it necessary, in good faith, for the public good and in the public interest. Therefore, rivers today are undoubtedly a subject of the commons. As community property, a river must remain unobstructed and freely accessible for the beneficial enjoyment and use of the general public. More importantly, it cannot be alienated, and its natural flow and existing traditional uses must be maintained. Although the Supreme Court struck down the Uttarakhand High Court judgment that legally animated the Ganga and Yamuna Rivers in 2017, the law of legal animism is inherent to Indian jurisprudence, particularly because of the well-established locus standi of Hindu deities, companies, and cooperative societies.

The Goan perspective

The Public Trust Doctrine seems to have had an early application in Goa, wherein large stretches of land were once ancestrally held collectively by the comunidades (ancestral village communities unique to Goa) under the traditional gaunkari system. Private property was by no means the norm, and vital natural resources were held collectively by the comunidade, barring some areas like Pernem. The gaunkari is a primordial village republic consisting of aggregates of pluralistic families (the diverse branches of extended family networks connected by blood and marriage), descending from a common trunk of a clan or kul, under the command of one or more leaders. The regime of ownership of property is of absolute communion (a Goan property regime that implies joint property holding) and perpetual associations based on birth rights.

Today, comunidades can consist of gaonkars (villagers), descending from the original gaonkars who are also known as jorneiros or zonnkars because they collect zonn or dividends from the profits of a comunidade; and/or, accesionistas (shareholders) who have invested in the comunidade by purchasing shares. Each gaunkari or comunidade is profoundly influenced by the theological, philosophical, political, and economic persuasions of the individual gaunkars. Collectively, they exercise all the legislative, executive, and judicial powers necessary to administer the entire estate, i.e., the village and all its villagers. The land records across the Velhas Conquistas⁵ reveal that titles to land almost always trace back to a comunidade or gaunkari. As with the Public Trust Doctrine, natural resources are held collectively and cannot be sold for fair cash or equivalent. The Codigo de Comunidades, i.e., Decree No. 2070, (15 April 1961), which governs all comunidades in the State of Goa, does not permit or provide for the transfer of title. It only permits parting with possession and provides a detailed procedure for the periodic public auction of properties for beneficial use and profit generation for the comunidade.

This public auction had to culminate with an agreement/contract stipulating the rent/foro and a payment schedule and clearly determining the rights of use of the leased land. Further, the comunidade was duty-bound to conduct periodic inspections, at least once a year, to ensure that the beneficial use of the land was being maintained. In actual practice, however, it would seem that anomalies crept into the working of the comunidade.

Central to the formation of the gaunkari and its agrarian economy was the river whose flows encouraged human innovation. Through human intervention and traditional irrigation systems, the ancestral gaunkars of Goa established thriving organic orchards called kulagars, and reclaimed wetlands to form fertile farmlands called khazans. Here, riverine agrarian communities used an ingenious system of building earthen bandhs or dikes using stones, mud, and mortar to block the flooding river. Through a system of sluice gates, they would then regulate the flow of tidal water, divert flood waters, and harvest rainwater to irrigate large tracts of fertile farmland.

The Gaunkars also created an intricate network of ponds, lakes, streams and canals to supply drinking water and irrigate these vast agricultural lands along the banks of the Mandovi river. Most interestingly, the gaunkaris were able to produce saline-resistant rice paddies like khorgut (a salt-tolerant rice variety grown in khazans) within close proximity of the sea. Therefore, with a perennial source of fresh water and an indigenous network of kulgars, khazans, manos [sluice gates], lakes and saltpans, the early gaunkars of Goa were able to adapt to their unique environment and establish thriving agrarian and fishing communities along the banks of the Mandovi, thereby creating the Gomantak or Mandovi River Civilization.

The khazans, kulgars, manos, saltpans, lakes, ponds, and tanks were all prized possessions of a gaunkari and were considered high-value properties. The successful bidder would be entrusted with the right to use and enjoy these properties with a corresponding duty to manage and maintain them on behalf of the community. These instances indicate how both the Public Trust Doctrine and legal animism are inherent and alive in the law of comunidades or gaunkari of Goa.

A Reality Check

Unfortunately, after the liberation of Goa and the introduction of the Goa Agricultural Tenancy Act, the comunidades’ right of reversion under the Code of Comunidades (1961, Article 341, Section III of Chapter VI) was ignored as was Article 238 [§2] of the Codigo.⁶ The convenience of redemption has been misconstrued, misused, and misapplied to enable the alienation of community properties. The socialist land reforms have decimated the comunidades and ruined agriculture and the gaunkari system. Across Goa, fields are being landfilled to build national highways, hotels, and second homes. Orchards and forests are being carelessly cut down and converted into settlement and commercial zones for profit.⁷ And even though Goa is the only state with statutory spatial plans, vital community properties like shorelines, forests, plateaus, orchards, fields, and wetlands are being rampantly privatised through over-tourism and unsustainable development policies—one holiday home, hotel, beach resort, shack, bar, and nightclub at a time as evidenced by the Bombay High Court Goa’s order dated 23 January 2025 (Goa Foundation vs. Town and Country Planning Board and Others 2025).

However, the ugliest disruption is the introduction of the cataclysmic casinos and the virtual decriminalization of gambling in Goa. The casino cartels now openly operate in the sangam of the Mandovi, Zuari and the Arabian Sea, in one of the most eco-sensitive regions of the river, right in Goa’s capital city of Panjim.

The Casino Conundrum

The city of Panjim, Panaji, Pangim or Ponje, as the locals like to say, transitioned through human intervention over the centuries from an idyllic riverine wetland into a coconut grove of the comunidade of Taleigao into the pleasure island retreat of the legendary Yusuf Adil Shahi of Bijapur.⁸ From 1510 CE until the turn of the eighteenth century, Adil Shah’s palatial residence symbolically served as the landing point for the incoming viceroy of the Estado da India, at which time more lands were carved out of the comunidade of Taleigao to create Nova Goa or Cidade de Pangim, i.e., the last colonial capital of the Estado da India. The people of Goa were finally liberated from the 450-year-long rule of the Portuguese colonial empire on 19 December 1961. And until recently, the legislature of Goa sat in the palace of Adil Shah, then officially called the Secretariat. The Fazenda or Treasury was housed in the harem house opposite the former palace.

Post-liberation, the city of Panjim has remained a major urban hub. In order to boost economic growth and facilitate international beach tourism, the state government decided to permit gambling in Goa. And so, in the year 1992, through an ill-conceived tourism policy, “non-live gaming” was permitted to enable hotels and beach resorts to obtain five-star qualifications. In 1996, the legislature amended the Goa Public Gambling Act, 1976—which still specifically prohibits gambling—to enable offshore casinos to operate in the State of Goa. Ironically, the entry of the MV Caravela yacht into the waters of the Mandovi marks the momentous start of the recolonization of Goa.

By 2019, there were six vessels in the Mandovi. Their “offshore” location was challenged before the High Court of Bombay at Goa. However, despite an interim order restricting the grant of any further licenses without the leave of the court (Justice F. M. Reis, Division Bench, High Court of Bombay at Goa, P.I.L. no. 15 of 2017), and a contempt petition pending (Contempt Petition No. 22 of 2018 filed in [P.I.L.] no. 15 of 2017), the Big Daddy Casino entered the river (Justice R. D. Dhanuka, Division Bench, High Court of Bombay at Goa 2019).

Today, most of Panjim port and the riverfront, including prime public property like the ferry wharfs, jetties, and the buildings of the Captain of Ports and Fisheries Department of the Government of Goa, have been converted into front offices for the seven “offshore” casinos currently operating in the mouth of the Mandovi. In fact, what pretends to be “offshore” is a cause for concern on both banks of the river. The casino cartels have managed to capture most of the riverbank and most of the navigable waters of Panjim port are blocked by large vessels permanently anchored and blocking the natural flow of the river. Through a combination of political intrigue, interim arrangements, and the power of money, the casino cartels have managed to take control of almost all of Panjim’s 2.8 km. stretch of riverfront from Patto Bridge to the Bhagwan Mahavir Children’s Park in Campal, virtually hijacking the entire coastline. The main public avenues and picturesque promenades along the riverfront have been carelessly commercialized and converted into grotesque front offices for money laundering and vice. The casino cartels are now not restricted to operating in five-star hotels and the seven vessels in the Mandovi as they have effectively captured large parts of the city and the emerging infrastructure developments, including the new jetties, airport terminals, and convention centers, all built on community property with public money.

The presence of the casino cartels is palpable the moment you enter the state of Goa and can be seen and felt everywhere you look or go thanks to their advertisements, which are plastered on almost every newspaper, billboard, airport, and available public space, including Goa Police barricades and road traffic signage, all of which have ended up normalizing the idea of casinos. Furthermore, the casino cartels have attracted a new type of tourism to Goa. The demands of this type of tourism have flooded the streets of Panjim with hawkers, drug peddlers, pimps, touts, and prostitutes. This has led to a drastic increase in crime, garbage, and carbon footprint in the city. Their presence is a public nuisance with several instances of crime, public urination, open defecation, and unruly drunkenness. It is no longer possible for a Ponjekar to walk along the riverfront, go fishing, or enjoy a sunset without being hounded and displaced by the obnoxious noise, smells, and trashy reality.

Most of the traditional family-run shops and establishments in the area have become commercialized tourist traps, serving this new type of tourist with cheap knockoff clothes, massage parlours and spas. As a result, it is almost impossible today to find traditional Goan cuisine in the capital city of the state of Goa. Ironically, as per the 2020 Amendment to the Goa Public Gaming Act, Goans are strictly prohibited from entering a casino. Paradoxically, moreoever, gambling is still strictly prohibited in India by laws, customs, and traditions, and is officially res extra commercium—a matter outside commerce (R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla vs Union of India reported in AIR 1957 SC 628). However, successive governments have, despite the public outcry and protest, enabled and facilitated the casinos and denies the people of Goa access to prime community property in their capital city. What was once undoubtedly res extra commercium, is now the principal commercial activity in Panjim. This is not just dystopian, but a cause for grave concern, because the Mandovi and the Zuari are interconnected by the Cumbarjua canal and share an estuarine zone with a vast subterranean hydrological network of aquifers. Therefore, the seven casino vessels in the Mandovi are not just an eyesore or social blight but also an ecological concern. The seaworthiness of these vessels is dubious and their source of power questionable, as is their carbon footprint and impact on the ecology and environment of the fragile mouth of the Mandovi (Varadkar 2024).

A Socio-Ecological Perspective

The Mandovi, its tributaries, and aquifers form part of important river system that is necessary for the survival of all who inhabit its basin—human and non-human alike. This is because the Mandovi originates and flows entirely through the Sahyadris or Western Ghats, a UNESCO World Heritage Site. According to the “Report of the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel” [WGEEP] a.k.a. the Madhav Gadgil Commission (2010), appointed by the Ministry of Environment and Forests of India [MoEF], the entire Western Ghats or sacred Sahyadris are a biodiversity hotspot with Ecologically Sensitive Areas that must be protected and preserved. The report mentioned how these riparian non-equatorial tropical evergreen forests have an exceptionally high level of biological diversity and endemism, making this region a unique bio-diversity hotspot of outstanding universal value.

However, due to the industrialization of agriculture and manufacturing, vast tracts of the Sahyadris have been deforested, degraded, and diverted towards industries, housing, farms, fields, spice gardens, tea and coffee plantations, and tourism. This has adversely impacted the ecology of the entire region. Sadly, primary tropical forests are rare in the Sahyadris today and are primarily found only in parts of Wayanad District in Kerala and in the region between the Uttara Kanada District in Karnataka and Ahmednagar District in Maharashtra, because these are notified protected forests with tiger and elephant corridors.

Considering that the Mandovi river originates and flows entirely within this region of the sacred Sahyadris, it is the beating heart and lifeline of this hotspot of biodiversity. As it meanders through the Sahyadris, it brings with it nutrient-rich waters and alluvial soil to create Myristica swamps, marsh-lands and wetlands that support dense mangrove forests and sui generis ecosystems that are natural biodiversity habitats for endemic and migratory species. These wetlands are critically significant natural ecosystems. The extraordinary Myristica Swamps found within this region are natural flood regulators, groundwater rechargers, carbon sequesters, and water filtration systems. They are important relic forests that are intrinsically part of the ancient socio-cultural landscape of the people of this region. Pursuant to India’s obligations under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (1979) and directions from the National Green Tribunal, the Government of Goa has identified 50 such wetlands and notified 35 of them under the Wetland (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017.

Early users of these lands and forests were aboriginal, pre-Vedic, tribal communities, namely, the Gaudos, Kunbis, Velips, Dhangar, and Gouly, who lived symbiotically in peaceful coexistence with nature. These communities have an intimate understanding of the ecology and the complex ecosystems that surround them. They celebrate this symbiotic relationship in sacred groves through rituals and festivals. Hence, these sacred forests are now being protected under the Biological Diversity Act. The natural harbours of Velha Goa [Old Goa], Agassaim and Mormugao, all within the estuarine region and at the sangam of the Mandovi-Zuari and the Arabian Sea, have since time immemorial, sustained pluralistic civilized communities that have respected, revered, and even worshipped this sacred life-sustaining river.

In Conclusion

The legendary Taoist philosopher Lao Tzu postulates in the Tao Te Ching, that we are in fact a river, once a drop of water born in the ocean and sprinkled on the earth; that, in a gentle rain we became a spring and then a stream, and finally a river, flowing deeper and stronger, nourishing all it touches as it nears its home once again. And so, this intercourse or interconnection, between rivers and humans is not limited to only fishing, irrigation, navigation, or even precious freshwater. Rivers also have a profound influence on the food, language, fashion, thoughts, beliefs, customs, traditions, and the lifestyles of the people living on their banks.

Therefore, rivers always have been and continue to be vital to our existence and humanity. The Mandovi is not an exception to this rule. What clearly emerges from the discussion above is that:

Rivers are not just commodities or natural resources but have an intrinsic value that is vital for human existence and the prosperity of the community.

The people who live along the river or in river basins have a deep and intimate connection with the river: this can be socio-cultural, religious, customary, and/or folklore.

The courts of law are now recognizing the distinct legal character of rivers and that a river is inherently vested with certain fundamental rights, just like a living being.

Through the lens of the law, one can consider the entire river system, including the rivulets, aquifers, forests, Myristicas, wetlands, and the entire estuarine region, as commons or community property, which belongs to everyone and no one at the same time. So, no one can claim a right to the detriment of others. Therefore, the Public Trust Doctrine mandates that rivers, as part of community property, must only be used for public purposes; must be made freely accessible for the beneficial enjoyment of the general public; must not be alienated, diverted, or sold; and must be maintained in consonance with existing traditional uses.

Thus, the proposed trans-basin diversion of water from the Mandovi river basin to the Malaprabha river basin and the ill-conceived dams, irrigation, hydroelectric projects, and casinos are all violations of the Public Trust Doctrine and fundamental rights vested in the Mandovi River, only yet to be officially recognized as such. And considering the Mandovi river’s intrinsic socio-ecological importance, the approach of the Mahadayi Water Disputes Tribunal is ex facie unjust and unfair as it has ignored the Public Trust Doc-trine, the fundamental rights of a river, the estuarine region, the ecological concerns, the lack of reliable data, and the socio-cultural customs of the people.

Therefore, it is now time for the judiciary and legislature to step up and of-ficially recognize the already well accepted reality that the natural world all around us is alive! And, if there is to be true justice for the Mandovi river and the People of the Gomantak, then we must first find the courage to ask ourselves:

Does the River belong to Me? Or, do We belong to the River?

˜+*˜+ om mane padme hum ˜+*˜+