Page 1

REPORTABLE

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   

IN

WRIT     PETITION     (CIVIL)     NO.265     OF     2011   

Avishek Goenka ... Appellant

Versus

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  

1

Page 2

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  

2

Page 3

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  

3

Page 4

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 requires modification.    

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

Page 5

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  

5

Page 6

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  

6

Page 7

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  

7

Page 8

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  

8

Page 9

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  

9

Page 10

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  

10

Page 11

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  

11

Page 12

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  

12

Page 13

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  

13

Page 14

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  

14

Page 15

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.

…….…………......................J.                                                        (A.K. Patnaik)  

...….…………......................J.                                               (Swatanter Kumar)

New Delhi August 3, 2012

15