Page 1

1

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

Page 2

2

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

Page 3

3

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

Page 4

4

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.

Page 5

5

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

Page 6

6

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

Page 7

7

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:-

Page 8

8

“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-

Page 9

9

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

Page 10

10

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

Page 11

11

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.

Page 12

12

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

Page 13

13

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

Page 14

14

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

Page 15

15

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

Page 16

16

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

Page 17

17

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

Page 18

18

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.

Page 19

19

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