Public Interest Litigation on Black Films on the glasses of the vehicle.

 

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on       

Black Films on the glasses of the vehicle.

 

In 27^th April, 2012 Supreme Court passed a judgment in the case of Avishek Goenka v/s. Union of India (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 265 of 2011) and said that “We prohibit the use of black films of any Visual Light Transmission (VLT) percentage or any other material upon the safety glass, wind screens (front & rear) and side glasses of all vehicles throughout out the country.” It also said that “The directions contained in this judgment shall become operational and enforceable with effect from 4^th May, 2012. The court has ruled out that traffic police shall remove the black film from the offending vehicles.”

Avishek Goenka filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court of India stated as under (few important points),

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 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.

4.    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.

5.    Rule 100 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 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]. 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.

Supreme Court’s view on petition

Petitioner prayed for the 100% VLT but it was declined by the Supreme Court. It also said that Court cannot issue directions that vehicles should have glasses with 100% VLT. Rule 100 of the Rules is a valid piece of legislation and is on the statute book. Once such provision exists, the court cannot issue directions contrary to provision of laws.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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. 

Finally….

A bench of Chief Justice S H Kapadia and Justices A K Patnaik and Swatanter Kumar went by the limits prescribed in the MV Act and said anything beyond the Visual Light Transmission (VLT) limit of 70% for the front and rear windshields and 50% for the side windows would be punishable.

Reactions from Car Owners

The newly formed Car Owners and Consumers' Association (COCA) will file a petition in the Supreme Court to review the ban on use of the tint films on four wheelers. The review petition will be filed by advocate Padma Prasad Hegde when the court re-opens after vacation. He told TOI that court banned films on the basis of a PIL filed by Avishek Goenka without hearing other parties involved. There are lakhs of consumers and car owners who use these films, who were not heard at the time of passing the order. The matter should have been given wide publicity before passing the order,'' he said.

In areas like the coast where temperatures are high, tint films are needed to cut the harshness of the sun and also improve cooling efficiency. In the absence of which more fuel will be spent on cooling. Moreover, we are not asking for dark tints, but within the permissible limits of the Motor Vehicle Act,'' he said.

Source :- http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-06-12/mangalore/32194104_1_film-on-window-panes-side-windows-review-petition Mangalore, Dt. June 12, 2012

Jammu & Kashmir HC directs police to remove curtains, shades from vehicle

A Division Bench of Jammu and Kashmir High Court today clarified that use of curtains and all kinds of shades on the vehicles will be covered under the ban imposed on the use of tinted glasses on the vehicles.
 The Bench comprising Chief Justice M M Kumar and Justice Muzaffar Hussain Attar was hearing a Public Interest Litigation, under which the court has issued several directions to the state government and police.
 The court, on a point raised by the counsels, clarified that any vehicle using the films or tinted glasses beyond the standard prescribed or using any other material like curtains or shades would be covered by its earlier directions issued on July 31, 2012.

The court also issued notice to the state in the applications filed by some persons, whose vehicles have been seized by the police for using tinted films.
 “Attention has been drawn to the Para 26 of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Avishek Goenka Vs Union of India that the manufacture of the Vehicles has been granted permission to manufacture the vehicles with tinted glasses which have visual Light Transmission (VLT) of Safety Glasses windscreen (front and rear) as 70 % VLT and side glasses as 40% VLT respectively and no black film or any other material can be pasted on the wind screens and side glasses of a vehicle”. The aggrieved owners appraised the court that their vehicles fulfill the norm as laid down by the Supreme Court and therefore, the vehicles seized may be ordered to be released.

The Bench allowed time to Senior Additional Advocate General Gagan Basotra, Deputy AG Inderjeet Gupta and Advocate Rohit Kapoor appearing for the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) to file their response to the applications.

The court also observed that the authorities concerned would see if the vehicles comply with the parameters as indicated in Para 26 of the judgment in Avishek Goenka Vs Union of India Case and submit a report to this Court on or before the next date of hearing, which was fixed for September 3, 2012.

Source - http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2012/Aug/28/remove-curtains-shades-as-well-hc-directs-police-41.asp Dt. August 27, 2012