Discussion in 'Non FIAT Cars and two wheelers' started by Rituraj, May 2, 2012.
The new judgement is fully confusing. Even I think there will be more hearing.
The below gives you the answer ----- same judgement is reserved
O R D E R
Heard petitioner in person and learned counsel for the parties.
Order reserved in all IAs
Today when I was waiting at the Thiruvanmiyur RTO signal, saw a big electronic board near the signal and the RTO office which read 'As per Supreme Court direction, use of dark tinted films on cars is banned'.
It looks chennai they are pretty serious. I removed it from my alto yesterday. I was planning to take it to Chennai. Now I can now park it in front of a RTO office.
So meaning permissible light tinted glass is allowed !!
Tinted glasses in vehicles: Act or face contempt action, SC warns cops - The Times of India
There was a counter argument on this right, wonder what happened to that
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
IA NOS. 4, 5, IA NOS. 6-8, IA. NOS. 9-11, 12, 13, 14 AND 15
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.265 OF 2011
Avishek Goenka ... Appellant
Union of India & Anr. ... Respondents
J U D G M E N T
Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. The applications for impleadment and intervention are allowed
subject to just exceptions. All applications for placing documents on
record are also allowed.
2. I.A. No. 5 of 2012 has been filed by the Dealers and Distributors
of tinted films in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 265 of 2011 under Order XVIII,
Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 against the dismissal of two
interim applications, i.e., seeking permission to file application for
impleadment and application for modification by the Registrar of this Court
vide his Order dated 16th May, 2012.
3. The learned Registrar vide the impugned order noticed that
application for impleadment was not maintainable inasmuch as the writ
petition in which the application was filed has already been disposed of.
In regard to the application for modification, according to the applicants,
the petitioner suppressed various aspects of the matter and misled the
court in passing the order and the same order was therefore, liable to be
modified. Dealing with this contention, the learned Registrar, while
referring to the judgment of this Court in Delhi Administration v. Gurdip
Singh Uban and Ors. [(2000) 7 SCC 269] held that the application, in fact,
was an application for review and not for modification. Thus, he declined
to receive the application and registered the same in accordance with the
Rules of the Supreme Court.
4. We hardly find any error of law in the Order of the Registrar
under appeal, but we consider it entirely unnecessary to deliberate upon
this issue in any further detail, since, we have permitted the applicants
to address the Court on merits of the application. Keeping in view the fact
that a number of other applications have been filed for clarification and
modification of the judgment of this Court dated 27th April, 2012, without
commenting upon the merit or otherwise of the present appeal, we would deal
only with the application for modification or clarification filed by these
applicants along with others.
5. I.A. No. 15 has been filed by the International Window Film
Association. I.A. No. 4 has been filed on behalf of Vipul Gambhir.
6. An unnumbered I.A. of 2012 is filed by 3M India Ltd. Another
unnumbered I.A. has been filed on behalf of the dealers and distributors of
the tinted films.
7. I.A. No. 3 of 2012, an application on behalf of the petitioner to
appear in person, is allowed.
8. I.A. No. 7 of 2012 has been filed on behalf of M/s. Garware
Polyester Ltd. I.A. No. 10 of 2012 is an application filed by M/s. Car
Owners and Consumer Association.
9. Another unnumbered I.A. has been filed on behalf of M/s. Gras
Impex Pvt. Ltd. All these applications have been filed by various
applicants seeking clarification and/or modification of the judgment of
this Court dated 27th April, 2012 on various grounds.
10. The petitioner has filed I.A. No. 11 of 2012 by way of a common
reply to the grounds taken in all these applications and has also placed
certain documents on record. The various applicants above-named have
sought modification/clarification of the judgment of this Court dated 27th
April, 2012 principally and with emphasis on the following grounds :
1) That the applicants were not parties to the writ petition and were not
aware of the proceedings before this Court. Thus, their submissions
could not be considered by the Court, hence the judgment of the Court
2) The applicants have placed material and reports on record that the use
of films or even black films is permissible scientifically and in law.
3) It is contended that Rule 100(2) uses the expression 'maintained' which
implies that safety glasses, including the wind screen, can be maintained
with requisite VLT percentage even by use of black films.
4) Lastly, it is contended that para 27 of the judgment needs modification
by substituting the words 'use of black films of any VLT percentage' by
the words 'use of black films of impermissible VLT percentage".
11. We must notice at the very threshold that in the main Writ
Petition no. 265 of 2011 and even in the present applications, there is no
challenge to Rule 100 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short, 'the
Rules'). This Court vide its judgment dated 27th April, 2012, has
interpreted the said Rule de hors the other factors. Once this Court
interprets a provision of law, the law so declared would be the law of the
land in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The law so
declared is binding on all and must be enforced in terms thereof. Having
interpreted the Rule to mean that it is the safety glasses alone with
requisite VLT that can be fixed in a vehicle, it is not for this Court to
change the language of the said Rule. It would, primarily, be a
legislative function and no role herein, is to be performed by this Court.
12. In the applications before us, as already noticed, some grounds
have been taken to demonstrate that some other interpretation of the
provision was possible. These grounds, firstly, are not grounds of law.
They are primarily the grounds of inconvenience. Enforcement of law, if
causes any inconvenience, is no ground for rendering a provision on the
statute book to be unenforceable. The challenge to the legislative act can
be raised on very limited grounds and certainly not the ones raised in the
present application. In fact, all the learned counsel appearing for
various applicants fairly conceded that they were not raising any challenge
to Rule 100 of the Rules. Once that position is accepted, we see no reason
to alter the interpretation given by us to the said Rule in our judgment
dated 27th April, 2012.
13. Still, we will proceed to discuss the contentions raised. The
judgment dated 27th April, 2012 was passed in a Public Interest Litigation
and the orders passed by this Court would be operative in rem. It was
neither expected of the Court nor is it the requirement of law that the
Court should have issued notice to every shopkeeper selling the films,
every distributor distributing the films and every manufacturer
manufacturing the films. But, in any case, this was a widely covered
matter by the Press. It was incumbent upon the applicants to approach the
Court, if they wanted to be heard at that stage. The writ petition was
instituted on 6th May, 2011 and the judgment in the case was pronounced
after hearing all concerned, including the Union Government, on 27th April,
2012, nearly after a year. Hence, this ground raised by the applicants
requires noticing only for being rejected.
14. Not only the present judgment but even the previous judgments of
this Court, in the cases referred to in the judgment dated 27th April,
2012, in some detail have never permitted use of films on the glasses.
What the Court permitted was tinted glasses with requisite VLT. Thus, the
view of this Court has been consistent and does not require any
clarification or modification.
15. Equally, without substance and merit is the submission that the
expression 'maintained' used in Rule 100 would imply that subsequent to
manufacturing, the car can be maintained by use of films with requisite VLT
of 70 per cent and 50 per cent respectively. In the judgment, after
discussing the scheme of the Act, the Rules framed thereunder and Rule 100
read in conjunction with Indian Standard No.2553 Part II of 1992, this
court took the view that the Rule does not permit use of any other material
except the safety glass 'manufactured as per the requirements of law'.
Rule 100 categorically states that 'safety glass' is the glass which is to
be manufactured as per the specification and requirements of explanation to
Rule 100(1). It is only the safety glasses alone that can be used by the
manufacturer of the vehicle. The requisite VLT has to be 70 per cent and
50 per cent of the screen and side windows respectively, without external
aid of any kind of material, including the films pasted on the safety
glasses. The use of film on the glass would change the very concept and
requirements of safety glass in accordance with law. The expression
'maintained' has to be construed to say that, what is required to be
manufactured in accordance with law should be continued to be maintained as
such. 'Maintenance' has to be construed ejusdem generis to manufacture and
cannot be interpreted in a manner that alterations to motor vehicles in
violation of the specific rules have been impliedly permitted under the
language of the Rule itself. The basic features and requirements of safety
glass are not subject to any alteration. If the interpretation given by
the applicants is accepted, it would frustrate the very purpose of enacting
Rule 100 and would also hurt the safety requirements of a motor vehicle as
required under the Act. Number of Rules have been discussed in the
judgment dated 27th April, 2012 to demonstrate that these Rules are
required to be strictly construed otherwise they would lead to disastrous
results and would frustrate the very purpose of enacting such law.
16. Now, we may come to the last contention that para 27 of the
judgment needs modification as noticed above. Para 27 of the judgment
reads as under:
"27. For the reasons afore-stated, we prohibit the use of black
films of any VLT percentage or any other material upon the
safety glasses, windscreens (front and rear) and side glasses of
all vehicles throughout the country. The Home Secretary,
Director General/Commissioner of Police of the respective
States/Centre shall ensure compliance with this direction. The
directions contained in this judgment shall become operative and
enforceable with effect from 4th May, 2012."
17. According to the applicant, the expression 'we prohibit the use of
black film of any VLT percentage or any other material upon safety glasses'
should be substituted by 'we prohibit the use of black films of
impermissible VLT percentage or any other material upon the safety
glasses'. The suggestion of the applicants would be in complete violation
of the substantive part of the judgment. We have already noticed that it
is not the extent of VLT percentage of films which is objectionable under
the Rules but it is the very use of black films or any other material,
which is impermissible to be used on the safety glasses. Once the
prescribed specifications do not contemplate use of any other material
except what is specified in the Explanation to Rule 100(1), then the use of
any such material by implication cannot be permitted. Quando aliquid
prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum. If we substitute the
plain language in para 27, it would render the entire judgment ineffective
and contradictory in terms. Having already held that no material,
including the films, can be used on the safety glasses, there is no
occasion for us to accept this contention as well.
18. The manufacturer and distributors have placed certain material
before us, including some photographs and reports of the American Cancer
Society, to show that mostly skin cancer is caused by too much exposure to
ultra-violet rays. From these photographs, attempt is made to show that in
the day time when the films are pasted upon the safety glasses, still the
face and the body of the occupant of the car is visible from outside. It is
also stated that certain amendments were proposed in the Code of Virginia
relating to the use of sun shading and tinting films, on the motor
vehicles. Relying upon the material relating to America, it is stated that
there are large number of cancer cases in USA and the framers of the law
have amended the provisions or are in the process of amending the
provisions. This itself shows that it is a case of change in law and not
one of improper interpretation, which is not the function of this Court.
19. To counter this, the petitioner has filed a detailed reply
supported by various documents. This shows that tinted glasses have been
banned in a number of countries and it is not permissible to use such
glasses on the windows of the vehicle. Annexure A1 and A3 have been placed
on record in relation to New South Wales, Australia, Afghanistan and some
other countries. He has also placed on record a complete research article
on the cancer scenario in India with future perspective which has
specifically compared India as a developing country with developed
countries like USA and has found that cancer is much less in India despite
the fact that most of the Indian population is exposed to ultra-violet rays
for the larger part of the day for earning their livelihood for their daily
works, business and other activities.
20. This controversy arising from the submissions founded on factual
matrix does not, in our opinion, call for any determination before this
Court. As already noticed, the Court has interpreted Rule 100 as it exists
on the statute book. The environment, atmosphere and geographical
conditions of each country are different. The level of tolerance and
likelihood of exposure to a disease through sun rays or otherwise are
subjective matters incapable of being examined objectively in judicial
sense. The Courts are neither required to venture upon such determination
nor would it be advisable.
21. It cannot be disputed and is a matter of common knowledge that
there are a large number of preventive measures that can be taken by a
person who needs to protect himself from the ultra-violet rays. Use of
creams, sun-shed and other amenities would be beneficial for the individual
alleged to be intolerable to sun rays. It does not require change of a
permanent character in the motor vehicle, that too, in utter violation of
the provisions of the statute. Suffice it to note that the reliance placed
upon the literature before us is misconceived and misdirected. The
interpretation of law is not founded on a single circumstance, particularly
when such circumstance is so very individualistic. The Court is not
expected to go into individual cases while dealing with interpretation of
law. It is a settled canon of interpretative jurisprudence that hardship
of few cannot be the basis for determining the validity of any statute.
The law must be interpreted and applied on its plain language. (Ref.
Saurabh Chaudri & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [AIR 2004 SC 361].
22. In IA 4, a similar request is made. We are not dealing with
individual cases and individual inconvenience cannot be a ground for giving
the law a different interpretation.
23. The petitioner argued with some vehemence that despite a clear
direction of this Court, the appellate authority has utterly failed in
enforcing the law. According to him, in majority of the vehicles in the
NCT Delhi and the surrounding districts of UP, like Ghaziabad, Noida as
well as towns of Haryana surrounding Delhi, law is violated with impunity.
All safety glasses are posted either with Jet black films or light coloured
films. He has referred to two instances, one of rape in Ghaziabad and the
other of kidnapping, where the cars involved in the commission of the crime
had black films. He has also stated that as per the press reports, the
vehicles which are involved in hit and run cases are also vehicles with
black films posted on the safety glasses.
24. We are really not emphasizing on the security threat to the
society at large by use of black films but it is a clear violation of law.
In terms of Rule 100, no material including films of any VLT can be pasted
on the safety glasses of the car and this law is required to be enforced
without demur and delay. Thus, we pass the following orders :
1) All the applications filed for clarification and modification are
dismissed, however, without any order as to costs.
2) All the Director Generals of Police/Commissioners of Police are
hereby again directed to ensure complete compliance of the judgment
of this Court in its true spirit and substance. They shall not
permit pasting of any material, including films of any VLT, on the
safety glasses of any vehicle.
3) We reiterate that the police authorities shall not only challan
the offenders but ensure that the black or any other films or
material pasted on the safety glasses are removed forthwith.
4) We make it clear at this stage that we would not initiate any
proceedings against the Director Generals of Police/Commissioners of
Police of the respective States/Union Territories but issue a clear
warning that in the event of non-compliance of the judgment of this
Court now, and upon it being brought to the notice of this Court,
the Court shall be compelled to take appropriate action under the
provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 without any further
notice to the said officers.
We do express a pious hope that the high responsible officers of the
police cadre like Director General/Commissioner of Police would not
permit such a situation to arise and would now ensure compliance of
the judgment without default, demur and delay.
5) Copies of this judgment be sent to all concerned by the Registry
including the Chief Secretaries of the respective States forthwith.
August 3, 2012
---------- Post added at 12:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:26 AM ----------
In short:- ALL petitions and applications by manufacturers and petitioners have been Dismissed....!!!!! R.I.P Sun Control films...~~~~
What a sad decision.. :sad::-(
hmmm...:!: i can neither be sad about it nor can i be happy..!!!!! It may sound a pretty idiotic but what if we paste films on the outer side of glasses??:anyone I mean cops often check for films on the inner side of the glass!! But still it will require an extraordinary job to neatly cut the film proportionately to the glass edges..thats the only way i see can be a l'il helpful if luck is in your favour
Separate names with a comma.