LexAVISHEK GOENKA versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 4 S.C.R. 35
AVISHEK GOENKA
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
(Writ Petition (C) No. 265 of 2011)
APRIL 27, 2012
[S.H. KAPADIA, CJI, A.K. PATNAIK AND
SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989:
r. 100 - Black films on safety glass of the windscreen and
windows of motor vehicle - Use of, permissibility - Hf?ld:
Alteration to the conditions of the vehicle in a manner
contravening the Motor Vehicles Act is not permissible in law
A
B
c
- r. 100(2) provides that the glass of the windscreen and rear 0
window of every motor vehicle shall be such and shall be
maintained in such a condition that VLT is not less than 70%
and on side windows not less than 50% and would conform
to Indian Standards {IS:2553-Part2-1992]- r.100 of the Rules
is a valid piece of legislation and is on the statute book - Once
such provision exists, directions cannot be issued contrary to
E
the provision of law - Thus, in face of the language of the Rule,
the relief prayed for in the instant writ petition that there should
be 100% VLT cannot be granted - However, prayer relating
to issuance of directions prohibiting use of black films on the
glasses of vehicles certainly has merit - On the plain reading
F
of r. 100, it is clear that car must have safety glass having VL T
at the time of manufacturing 70% for windscreen and 50% for
side windows - It should be so maintained in that condition
thereafter - The Rule and the explanation do not contemplate
or give any leeway to the manufacturer or user of the vehicle
G
to, in any manner, tamper with the VLT - The Rule and the
IS only specify the VLT of the glass itself - 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
35
H
36
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 4 S.C.R.
A violation of r.100 as well as the prescribed IS- Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 - SS. 52, 53, 190.
r. 100 - Interpretation of - Ban on use of black films on
glass of the windscreen and windows of motor vehicle - Held:
r.100 has to be interpreted in such a manner that it serves
8
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 - On the plain reading of r. 100, it is clear that use
of black films on the glasses of vehicles is prohibited - Such
C use of the black films have been proved to be criminal's
paradise and a social evil and has jeopardized the security
and safety interests of the State and public at large - If the
crimes can be reduced by enforcing the prohibition of law, it
would further the cause of Rule of Law and Public Interest as
D well - The private interest would stand subordinate to public
good -
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 -
E
Interpretation of statutes.
Use of black films on vehicles of certain V/PsNVIPs for
security reasons - Permissibility- Held: Although this practice
is not supported by law, as there is no notification by the
competent authority giving exemption to such vehicles from
F the operation of r. 100 or any of its provisions, the cases of
the persons who have been provided with Zand 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
G of exemption in accordance with law and upon due application
of mind - The appropriate government is free to make any
regulations that it may consider appropriate in this regard.
r.100 - Tinted glass and glass coated with black film -
H Distinction between.
AVISHEK GOENKA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
37
The instant writ petition was filed seeking direction A
for use of safety glasses on the windows/wind shields in
vehicles having 100% Visual Light Transmission (VLT)
only and to that extent, the petitioner challenged the
correctness of Rule 100 of the Motor Vehicles Rules,
1989. The petitioner also prayed for prohibition on use of B
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 prayed that a larger
pExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.