The Supreme Court...and Tinted film..
Hmmmm....
Sometimes I do wonder....
If you can allow pockets of privilege to enjoy certain benefits, like state-funded Black Cat security, no toll at Expressways and highways, at airports and at every stage of , red-light-priority in traffic, large plots of land, life-time pensions, and post retirement benefits like a palatial house and key appointments post retirement, and deny them to the ordinary citizen, well, then that decision seems to be perfectly in line with the thinking that we ARE still a feudal state...that the democratic principles of equality are simply a window dressing for our hunger for State Patronage..that people with Z and Z-plus security will be allowed to have dark film...
"If they cannot check the legal-tint films, BAN all films"...
You cannot keep arms to protect your family, but they can..
You cannot hold a large property, but they can...
You cannot see what you want to see, but they can..
You cannot throw a mike or papers at an MP but they can.... and in Parliament too...
Generalization and presumptions are not proof in law, but Court decisions can hold them so...
How many cases of violence are listed before the court, as being due to Tinted film, but have they listed how many law abiding citizens use them to battle the harsh sun? Care or dare to compare the statistics ?
The Supreme Court, in more reasonable times have delivered judgements that said that merely because the Administration cannot implement the Law does not make the law unenforceable...
Maybe next time, in the next case,, you will find that because the Police cannot get at sexual offenders, they will direct that no man be allowed to walk without a locked chastity belt..or with blinkers...for who knows, all men may be tempted into carrying out sexual offences...
That because some bikers steal gold chains and use a helmet whilst riding , all helmeted riders are suspect...so stop them, harass them and delay them...
No, this is not fiction..it is already happening..
In Pune, where in some cases, the thieves used a Bajaj Puslsar motorbike,ALL riders using a Pulsar bike were stopped and made to prove their identity...five or six times in a day..
Yes, I do wonder... I am not personally a Fan of dark tinted film, but this order smacks of arbitrariness..
Hmmmm....
Sometimes I do wonder....
If you can allow pockets of privilege to enjoy certain benefits, like state-funded Black Cat security, no toll at Expressways and highways, at airports and at every stage of , red-light-priority in traffic, large plots of land, life-time pensions, and post retirement benefits like a palatial house and key appointments post retirement, and deny them to the ordinary citizen, well, then that decision seems to be perfectly in line with the thinking that we ARE still a feudal state...that the democratic principles of equality are simply a window dressing for our hunger for State Patronage..that people with Z and Z-plus security will be allowed to have dark film...
"If they cannot check the legal-tint films, BAN all films"...
You cannot keep arms to protect your family, but they can..
You cannot hold a large property, but they can...
You cannot see what you want to see, but they can..
You cannot throw a mike or papers at an MP but they can.... and in Parliament too...
Generalization and presumptions are not proof in law, but Court decisions can hold them so...
How many cases of violence are listed before the court, as being due to Tinted film, but have they listed how many law abiding citizens use them to battle the harsh sun? Care or dare to compare the statistics ?
The Supreme Court, in more reasonable times have delivered judgements that said that merely because the Administration cannot implement the Law does not make the law unenforceable...
Maybe next time, in the next case,, you will find that because the Police cannot get at sexual offenders, they will direct that no man be allowed to walk without a locked chastity belt..or with blinkers...for who knows, all men may be tempted into carrying out sexual offences...
That because some bikers steal gold chains and use a helmet whilst riding , all helmeted riders are suspect...so stop them, harass them and delay them...
No, this is not fiction..it is already happening..
In Pune, where in some cases, the thieves used a Bajaj Puslsar motorbike,ALL riders using a Pulsar bike were stopped and made to prove their identity...five or six times in a day..
Yes, I do wonder... I am not personally a Fan of dark tinted film, but this order smacks of arbitrariness..
In one stroke, they have made criminals of millions of citizens...no, be in no doubt, that is what you have just been declared to be... Convicted, to be fined by your unfriendly neighbourhood cop...
You said " A fair hearing"!? Errr.. what is that?...
Now another set of whimsical orders...everyone has to take the day off, rush to a vendor or mechanic, pull off even those films that fulfill the criteria for the legal tints.... The lower versions of most cars do not have tinted glass..so they must, as all financially-disabled people do, simply stew, while those who can pay for the higher versions could pass by with costlier glass...And maybe pay 4 times over for a clear tint film...
If the administration had passed such a dictate, (no, I cannot and do declare expressly that I do not compare the SC Court with any Tughlakhi despot, for I respect greatly the wisdom amply demonstrated, and do not want to hurt the feelings of the SC, and yet I cannot feel bad that millions of us have just been declared as criminals or as persons in violation of the Law) one would ( and I am sure the SC itself would ) have wondered if that Administrator had any relative in the "clear tint-film business" or in the " clear-tint film" business....
If the measure of any action or law is to be reasonable, with a nexus to the aim sought to be attained, and with reasonableness of determination and implementation, with a right of remedy if challenged, then this one seems rather difficult, if not impossible to understand or defend..
For it has come through in a PIL, not through the process of normal jurisprudence...
A direct access to the SC, with no forum for appeal...and who can afford the Legal Charges of going to the SC to review its own order? Most PILs are dismissed at admission for the simple reason that it is not a fit case for the SC to exercise its powers or when the Administration should have been approached first...
A sad decision...it brings the Law to disrespect by a large number of Law-abiding citizens...
Is the Supreme Court right in its interpretation
of the Motor Vehicle Act, Rule 100 , that use of tinted film is not permitted
by the Act and Rules?
Hmmmm...
Here is the rule:
Window glass.
100. Safety glass.—(1) The glass of windscreens and the windows of every motor
vehicle [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 [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 twowheelers 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.
197
[(3-A) The glass of the front windscreen of a construction equipment vehicle
manufactured after 3 years from the date of commencement of the Central Motor
Vehicles (Sixth Amendment) Rules, 2000 shall be made of laminated safety glass.]
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in this rule if the Central Government is of the
opinion that it is necessary and expedient to do so in public interest, it may, by order
published in the Official Gazette, exempt any motor vehicle including construction
equipment vehicle] for use by any person, from the provisions of this rule.]
------------------------
With respect, ( with no comment on whether due or not) but with respect, it seems to be judicial legislation..
The Legislators in their wisdom seem to have realized that many practical considerations come into play and believed that they could trust their Citizen drivers to be realistic enough to have clear enough vision for safety, and that the Indian Standards set and as provided in the Rule 100 above, if met, could deal with it effectively.
Not so, says the SC...dont trust all citizens with film on their windows...
Off with the fim, they said...
So now,
If there is dust after a long drive across Delhi or Rajasthan in the middle of a dust storm,then if the Visual Transmission of Light is upto 70 percent through the windscreens and 50 percent through the side windows, then I think you are safe...
Or else, they will direct the DustGods also to stop storms ..and direct the Police to forthwith wipe all windows clean...AT ONCE!!!!
-----------------------------
Now maybe a follow-up judgement may be needed too in the case of rain..and maybe they will direct the Rain-Gods also to stop raining heavily..and direct the Police to forthwith wipe all windows clean...AT ONCE!!!!
------------------
Wow!
I knew the SC was powerful...but not that powerful...
Now I know.
Hmmmm...
Here is the rule:
Window glass.
100. Safety glass.—(1) The glass of windscreens and the windows of every motor
vehicle [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 [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 twowheelers 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.
197
[(3-A) The glass of the front windscreen of a construction equipment vehicle
manufactured after 3 years from the date of commencement of the Central Motor
Vehicles (Sixth Amendment) Rules, 2000 shall be made of laminated safety glass.]
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in this rule if the Central Government is of the
opinion that it is necessary and expedient to do so in public interest, it may, by order
published in the Official Gazette, exempt any motor vehicle including construction
equipment vehicle] for use by any person, from the provisions of this rule.]
------------------------
With respect, ( with no comment on whether due or not) but with respect, it seems to be judicial legislation..
The Legislators in their wisdom seem to have realized that many practical considerations come into play and believed that they could trust their Citizen drivers to be realistic enough to have clear enough vision for safety, and that the Indian Standards set and as provided in the Rule 100 above, if met, could deal with it effectively.
Not so, says the SC...dont trust all citizens with film on their windows...
Off with the fim, they said...
So now,
If there is dust after a long drive across Delhi or Rajasthan in the middle of a dust storm,then if the Visual Transmission of Light is upto 70 percent through the windscreens and 50 percent through the side windows, then I think you are safe...
Or else, they will direct the DustGods also to stop storms ..and direct the Police to forthwith wipe all windows clean...AT ONCE!!!!
-----------------------------
Now maybe a follow-up judgement may be needed too in the case of rain..and maybe they will direct the Rain-Gods also to stop raining heavily..and direct the Police to forthwith wipe all windows clean...AT ONCE!!!!
------------------
Wow!
I knew the SC was powerful...but not that powerful...
Now I know.
------------------------------
