Friends I guess many of you would like to read the judgement and hence I thought it best to put it up here. Many people have been trying to read it to understand it better. There are two important points here:
1) use of any kind of Films on car window is banned
2) exception are their for VIP depending on MHA classification
The source of this judgement copy is Indrani Basu <indrani.basu@timesgroup.com> from Times of India who had written the article in times of India on the same subject. She has sent it to me via email on Mon 5/7/2012 9:36 PM
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 265 OF 2011
Avishek Goenka
… Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Anr.
… Respondents
J U D G M E N T
Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. Alarming rise in heinous
crimes like kidnapping, sexual assault
on women and dacoity have impinged upon the
right to life and the
right to live in a safe environment which
are within the contours of
Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
One of the contributory
factors to such increase is use of black
films on windows/windshields
of four-wheeled vehicles. The
petitioner, as a public spirited
person, has invoked the
extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 32 of the Constitution in the
present public interest
litigation, praying for certain
directions to stop this menace.
According to the petitioner,
this Court should issue a writ or
direction requiring use
of such safety glasses on the
windows/windshields in vehicles
having 100 per cent Visual Light
Transmission (for short
‘VLT’) only and, to that extent, the
petitioner challenges the
correctness of Rule 100 of the Motor
Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short “the
Rules”). He also prays for
prohibition on use of black films on
the glasses of the vehicles,
proper implementation of law in that behalf
and finally, for taking
stringent actions against the offenders,
using vehicles with black
filmed glasses. He also prays that a
larger police force should be
deputed to monitor such offences.
2. The use of black films upon
the vehicles gives immunity to the
violators in committing a crime and is used
as a tool of criminality,
considerably increasing criminal
activities. At times, heinous crimes
like dacoity, rape, murder and even
terrorist acts are committed in or
with the aid of vehicles having black films
pasted on the side windows
and on the screens of the vehicles.
It is stated that because of non-
observance of the norms, regulations and
guidelines relating to the
specifications for the front and rear
windscreens and the side windows
of the vehicles, the offenders can move
undetected in such vehicles
and commit crimes without hesitation.
3. The word ‘tinted’ means
shade or hue as per the dictionary. The
rear and front and side glasses of vehicles
are provided with such
shade or tint, and therefore, they are
widely referred to as ‘tinted
glasses’, which is different from ‘black
films’. The glasses of the
vehicles having a coating of black films
cannot be termed as ‘tinted
glasses’ because they are not manufactured
as such.
4. Besides aiding in
commission of crimes, black films on the
vehicles are also at times positively
correlated with motor accidents
on the roads. It is for the reason
that the comparative visibility to
that through normal/tinted glasses which
are manufactured as such is
much lesser and the persons driving
at high speed, especially on
highways, meet with accidents because of
use of black filmed glasses.
5. The use of black films also
prevents the traffic police from
seeing the activity in the car and
communicating with the driver of
the vehicle. The petitioner also
cites that the number of fatal
accidents of vehicles having black films is
much higher in India than
in other parts of the world. The
black filmed vehicles have lower
visibility and therefore, the chances of
accident are increased by 18
per cent to 38 per cent due to low
visibility. He has also referred
to the World Health Organization’s data,
pertaining to deaths caused
on roads, which, in India have
crossed that of China, though the
latter has more vehicles, population and
area in comparison to India.
A device called luxometer can measure
the level of opaqueness in
windows owing to the application of black
films but this device is a
scarce resource and is
very scantily available with the police
personnel in India.
6. The Court can take a
judicial notice of the fact that even as
per the reports, maximum crimes are
committed in such vehicles and
there has been a definite rise in the
commission of heinous crimes,
posing a threat to security of individuals
and the State, both.
7. Whatever are the rights of
an individual, they are regulated and
controlled by the statutory provisions of
the Act and the Rules framed
thereunder. The citizens at large
have a right to life i.e. to live
with dignity, freedom and safety.
This right emerges from Article 21
of the Constitution of India.
As opposed to this constitutional
mandate, a trivial individual protection
or inconvenience, if any,
must yield in favour of the larger public
interest.
8. The petitioner claims to
have received various replies from the
police department of different States like
Tamil Nadu, West Bengal,
Delhi and Ministry of Home Affairs, New
Delhi. On the basis of the
replies received under the provisions of
the Right to Information Act,
2005, copies of which have been annexed to
the writ petition, it is
averred that these authorities are of the
unanimous opinion that black
films should be banned. Black filmed
glasses help in commission of
crime as well as hiding the criminals even
during vehicle checks at
‘Naka’ points. Non-availability
of electronic devices to measure
violations and lack of police force to
enforce the Rules are also
apparent from these replies. The
petitioner also states that the use
of black films is not
prevalent in developed and/or developing
countries all over the world. In
fact, in some of the countries, it
is specifically banned. In
Afghanistan, Belarus, Nigeria, Uganda and
even in Pakistan, use of black films on the
vehicle glasses is banned.
Use of black films is not prevalent
in United States of America,
United Kingdom, Germany and other countries
as well.
9. In order to examine the
merits of the prayers made by the
petitioner in the present application, it
will be necessary for us to
refer to the relevant laws.
10. The Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 was
enacted to consolidate and amend
the laws relating to motor
vehicles. This Act was subjected to
various amendments. Finally, the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short
‘the Act’) was enacted, inter alia, with
the object and reason being,
to provide for quality
standards for pollution control devices,
provisions for issuing
fitness certificate of the vehicle and
effective ways of tracking down traffic
offenders. Section 190 of the
Act provides that any person who drives or
causes or allows to be
driven in any public place a motor vehicle
or a trailer which has any
defect, or violates the standards
prescribed in relation to road
safety, or violates the provisions of
the Act or the Rules made
therein, is punishable as per the
provisions of the Act. In other
words, alteration to the
conditions of the vehicle in a manner
contravening the Act is not permissible in
law. Section 52 of the
Act declares that no owner of a motor
vehicle shall so alter the
vehicle that the
particulars contained in the certificate
of
registration are at variance with those
originally specified by the
manufacturer. However, certain
changes are permissible in terms of
the proviso to this Section and that too
with the approval of the
Central Government/competent authority.
In terms of Section 53 of
the Act, if any registering authority or
other prescribed authority
has reason to believe that any motor
vehicle within its jurisdiction
is in such a condition that its use in a
public place would constitute
a danger to the public,
or that it fails to comply with
the
requirements of the Act or the Rules made
thereunder, whether due to
alteration of vehicle violative of Section
52 of the Act or otherwise,
the Authority may, after giving opportunity
of hearing, suspend the
registration certificate for the period
required for rectification of
such defect, and if the defect is still not
removed, for cancellation
of registration. In exercise of its
power, under various provisions
of the Act, the Central Government has
framed the Rules. Chapter V of
the Rules deals with construction,
equipment and maintenance of motor
vehicles. Rule 92 mandates that no
person shall use or cause or allow
to be used in any public place any motor
vehicle which does not comply
with the provisions of this Chapter.
There are different Rules which
deals with various aspects of construction
and maintenance of vehicles
including lights, brakes, gears and other
aspects including overall
dimensions of the vehicles. Rule 100
of the Rules concerns itself
with the glass of
windscreen and VLT of light of such
glass
windscreen. It specifically provides
for fixation of glasses made of
laminated safety glass conforming to Indian
standards IS:2553-Part 2 –
1992 and even for the kind of windscreen
wipers required to be fixed
on the front screen of the vehicle.
Relevant part of Rule 100, with
which we are concerned, reads as under:-
“100. Safety glass.—(1)
The glass of windscreens and the windows
of every motor vehicle
188[other than agricultural tractors]
shall be of safety
glass:
Provided that in the
case of three-wheelers and vehicles with
hood and side covers,
the windows may be of 189[acrylic or
plastic transparent
sheet.]
Explanation.—For the
purpose of this rule,—
i)
"safety glass" means glass
conforming to the
specifications of the Bureau of Indian Standards or any
International Standards and so manufactured or treated
that if fractured, it does not fly
or break into
fragments capable of causing severe cuts;
ii) any
windscreen or window at the front of the vehicle,
the inner surface of which is at an angle more
than
thirty degrees to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle
shall be deemed to face to the front.
[(2) The glass of the
windscreen and rear window of every motor
vehicle shall be
such and shall be maintained in such
a
condition that the
visual transmission of light is not less than
70%. The glasses used
for side windows are such and shall be
maintained in such
condition that the visual transmission of
light is not
less than 50%, and shall conform to
Indian
Standards [IS: 2553—
Part 2—1992];
(3) The glass of the
front windscreen of every motor vehicle
[other than two wheelers
and agricultural tractors] manufactured
after three years from
the coming into force of the Central
Motor Vehicles
(Amendment) Rules, 1993 shall be made
of
laminated safety glass:
Provided that on and
from three months after the commencement of
the Central Motor
Vehicles (Amendment) Rules, 1999, the glass of
the front windscreen of
every motor vehicle other than two-
wheelers and
agricultural tractors shall be made of laminated
safety glass conforming
to the Indian Standards IS: 2553—Part
2—1992.
Explanation.—For
the purpose of these sub-rules
"laminated
safety glass"
shall mean two or more pieces of glass
held
together by an
intervening layer or layers of plastic materials.
The laminated safety
glass will crack and break under sufficient
impact, but the pieces
of the glass tend to adhere to the
plastic material and do
not fly, and if a hole is produced, the
edges would be less
jagged than they would be in the case of an
ordinary glass.”
11. From the above provisions, it is
clear that the Rules deal with
every minute detail of construction and
maintenance of a vehicle. In
other words, the
standards, sizes and specifications which
the
manufacturer of a vehicle is required to
adhere to while manufacturing
the vehicle are exhaustively dealt with
under the Rules. What is
permitted has been specifically provided
for and what has not been
specifically stated would obviously be
deemed to have been excluded
from these Rules. It would neither
be permissible nor possible for
the Court to read into
these statutory provisions, what is not
specifically provided for. These are
the specifications which are in
consonance with the prescribed IS No.
2553-Part 2 of 1992 and nothing
is ambiguous or uncertain. Let us
take a few examples. Rule 104
requires that every motor vehicle, other
than three wheelers and motor
cycles shall be fitted with two red
reflectors, one each on both sides
at their rear. Every motor cycle,
shall be fitted with at least one
red reflector at the rear. Rule 104A,
provides that two white reflex
in the front of the vehicle on each
side and visible to on-coming
vehicles from the front at night.
Rule 106 deals with deflections of
lights and requires that no lamp showing a
light to the front shall be
used on any motor vehicle including
construction equipment vehicle
unless such lamp is so constructed, fitted
and maintained that the
beam of light emitted therefrom is
permanently deflected downwards to
such an extent that it is not capable of
dazzling any person whose eye
position is at a distance of 8 metres from
the front of lamp etc.
Rules 119 and 120 specify the kind, size
and manner in which the horn
and silencer are to be fixed in a vehicle.
12. These provisions demonstrate the
extent of minuteness in the
Rules and the efforts of
the framers to ensure, not only the
appropriate manner of construction and
maintenance of vehicle, but
also the safety of other users of the road.
13. Rule 100 provides for glass of
windscreen and windows of every
motor vehicle. The glass used has to
be ‘safety glass’. Then it
provides for the inner surface angle on the
windscreen. Rule 100 (2)
provides that the glass of the windscreen
and rear window of every
motor vehicle shall be such
and shall be maintained in such a
condition that VLT is not less than 70 per
cent and on side windows
not less than 50 per cent and
would conform to Indian Standards
[IS:2553-Part2-1992].
14. The said IS, under clause 5.1.7,
deals with VLT standards and it
provides for the same percentage of VLT
through the safety glass, as
referred to in Rule 100(2) itself.
15. Having dealt with the relevant
provisions of law, we may also
refer to a statistical fact that the number
of violators of Rule 100
has gone up from 110 in the year 2008 to
1234 in the year 2010, in
Delhi alone. This itself shows an
increasing trend of offenders in
this regard.
16. In face of the language
of the Rule, we cannot grant the
petitioner the relief prayed for, that
there should be 100 per cent
VLT. This Court cannot issue
directions that vehicles should have
glasses with 100 per cent VLT. Rule
100 of the Rules is a valid piece
of legislation and is on the
statute book. Once such provision
exists, this Court cannot issue directions
contrary to the provision
of law. Thus, we decline to grant
this prayer to the petitioner.
17. However, the
prayer relating to issuance of directions
prohibiting use of black films on the
glasses of vehicles certainly
has merit. On the plain reading of
the Rule, it is clear that car
must have safety glass having VLT at the
time of manufacturing 70 per
cent for windscreen and 50 per cent for
side windows. It should be so
maintained in that condition thereafter.
In other words, the Rule
not impliedly, but specifically, prohibits
alteration of such VLT by
any means subsequent to its manufacturing.
How and what will be a
“safety glass” has been explained in
Explanation to Rule 100. The
Explanation while defining ‘laminated
safety glass’ makes it clear
that two or more pieces of glass
held together by an intervening
layers of plastic materials so that the
glass is held together in the
event of impact. The Rule and the
explanation do not contemplate or
give any leeway to the manufacturer or user
of the vehicle to, in any
manner, tamper with the VLT. The Rule
and the IS only specify the VLT
of the glass itself.
18. Two scenarios
must be examined. First, if the glass
so
manufactured already has the VLT as
specified, then the question of
further reducing it by any means shall be
in clear violation of Rule
100 as well as the prescribed IS.
Secondly, the rule requires a
manufacturer to manufacture the
vehicles with safety glasses with
prescribed VLT. It is the minimum
percentage that has been specified.
The manufacturer may manufacture
vehicle with a higher VLT to the
prescribed limit or even a
vehicle with tinted glasses, if such
glasses do not fall short of the minimum
prescribed VLT in terms of
Rule 100. None can be permitted to
create his own device to bring
down the percentage of the VLT
thereafter. Thus, on the plain
reading of the Rule and the IS standards,
use of black films of any
density is impermissible. Another
adverse aspect of use of black
films is that even if they reflect
tolerable VLT in the day time,
still in the night it would clearly violate
the prescribed VLT limits
and would result in
poor visibility, which again would be
impermissible.
19. The legislative intent attaching
due significance to the ‘public
safety’ is evident from the
object and reasons of the Act, the
provisions of the Act
and more particularly, the Rules framed
thereunder. Even if we assume, for
the sake of argument, that Rule
100 is capable of any interpretation, then
this Court should give it
an interpretation which would serve the
legislative intent and the
object of framing such rules,
in preference to one which would
frustrate the very
purpose of enacting the Rules as well
as
undermining the public safety and interest.
Use of these black films
have been proved to be criminal’s paradise
and a social evil. The
petitioner has rightly brought on record
the unanimous view of various
police authorities right from the States of
Calcutta, Tamil Nadu and
Delhi to the Ministry of Home Affairs
that use of black films on
vehicles has jeopardized the security
and safety interests of the
State and public at large. This
certainly helps the criminals to
escape from the eyes of the police and aids
in commission of heinous
crimes like sexual assault on women,
robberies, kidnapping, etc. If
these crimes can be reduced by enforcing
the prohibition of law, it
would further the cause of Rule of Law and
Public Interest as well.
20. This Court in the case of
Hira Tikoo v. Union Territory of
Chandigarh [(2004) 6 SCC 765], while
dealing with the provisions of
town planning and the land allotted to the
allottees, upon which the
allotees had made full payment, held that
such allotment was found to
be contravening other statutory provisions
and the allotted area was
situated under the reserved forest land and
land in periphery of 900
meters of Air Force Base. The Court
held that there was no vested
right and public welfare should prevail as
the highest law. Thus,
this Court, while relying upon the maxim
“salus populi est suprema
lex”, modified the order of the High Court
holding that the allottees
had no vested right and the land forming
part of the forest area could
not be taken away for other purposes.
Reference can also be made to
the judgment of this Court in Friends
Colony Development Committee v.
State of Orissa [AIR 2005 SC 1], where this
Court, while referring to
construction activity violative of the
regulations and control orders,
held that the regulations made under
Orissa Development Authorities
Act, 1982 may meddle with private rights
but still they cannot be
termed arbitrary or unreasonable. The
private interest would stand
subordinate to public good.
21. In the present case as well,
even if some individual interests
are likely to suffer, such individual or
private interests must give
in to the larger public interest. It
is the duty of all citizens to
comply with the law. The Rules
are mandatory and nobody has the
authority in law to mould these rules for
the purposes of convenience
or luxury and certainly not for crime.
We may also note that a Bench
of this Court, vide its Order dated
15th December, 1998 in Civil
Appeal No. 3700 of 1999 titled Chandigarh
Administration and Others v.
Namit Kumar & Ors., had permitted the
use of ‘light coloured tinted
glasses’ only while specifically
disapproving use of films on the
vehicles. Subsequently, in the same
case, but on a different date,
another Bench of this Court vide its order
reported at [(2004) 8 SCC
446] made a direction that mandate of
sub-Rule (2) of Rule 100 shall
be kept in mind while dealing with such
cases.
22. Rightly so, none of the orders
of this Court have permitted use
of black films. Rule 100(2)
specifies the VLT percentage of the
glasses at the time of manufacture
and to be so maintained even
thereafter. In Europe, Regulation No.
43 of the Economic Commission
for Europe of the United Nations (UN/ECE)
and in Britain, the Road
Vehicles (Construction and Use)
Regulations, 1986, respectively, refer
to the International Standard ISO 3538 on
this issue, providing for
VLT percentage of 70 and 75 per cent
respectively.
23. In light of the above
discussion, we have no hesitation in
holding that use of black films or
any other material upon safety
glass, windscreen and side windows is
impermissible. In terms of
Rule 100(2), 70 per cent and 50 per cent
VLT standard are relatable to
the manufacture of the safety glasses for
the windshields (front and
rear) and the side windows respectively.
Use of films or any other
material upon the windscreen or the side
windows is impermissible in
law. It is the VLT of
the safety glass without any additional
material being pasted upon the safety
glasses which must conform with
manufacture specifications.
24. Another issue that has been
raised in the present Writ Petition
is that certain VIPs/VVIPs are using black
films on their vehicles for
security reasons. Even this practice
is not supported by law, as no
notification by the competent
authority has been brought to our
notice, giving exemption to such vehicles
from the operation of Rule
100 or any of its provisions. Be
that as it may, we do not wish to
enter upon the arena of the security
and safety measures when the
police department and
Home Ministry consider such exemption
appropriate. The cases of the
persons who have been provided with Z
and Z+ security category may be considered
by a Committee consisting
of the Director General of
Police/Commissioner of Police of the
concerned State and the Home Secretary of
that State/Centre. It will
be for that Committee to examine such cases
for grant of exemption in
accordance with law and
upon due application of mind. These
certificates should be provided only in
relation to official cars of
VIPs/VVIPs, depending upon the category of
security that such person
has been awarded by the
competent authority. The appropriate
government is free to make any
regulations that it may consider
appropriate in this regard.
25. The competent officer
of the traffic police or any other
authorized person shall challan such
vehicles for violating Rules 92
and 100 of the Rules with effect from the
specified date and thereupon
shall also remove the black films from the
offending vehicles.
26. The manufacturer of the vehicle
may manufacture the vehicles
with tinted glasses which have Visual
Light Transmission (VLT) of
safety glasses windscreen (front and rear)
as 70 per cent VLT and side
glasses as 40 per cent VLT, respectively.
No black film or any other
material can be pasted on the
windscreens and side glasses of a
vehicle.
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.
28. With the above directions, we
partially allow this writ petition
and prohibit use of black films of any
percentage VLT upon the safety
glasses, windscreens (front and rear)
and side glasses. However,
there shall be no order as to costs.
….…………......................CJI.
(S.H. Kapadia)
…….…………......................J.
(A.K. Patnaik)
...….…………......................J.
(Swatanter Kumar)
New Delhi
April 27, 2012
