Remove black films from cars or face action, SC warns police

New Delhi -  The Supreme Court Friday directed police chiefs in all states and union territories to ensure compliance of its direction that no material, including films of any VLT,  be put on the safety glasses of any vehicle or face action.

"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 (visual light transmission), on the safety glasses of any vehicle," directed the bench of Justice Swatanter Kumar and Justice A.K.

Patnaik.

Pronouncing the order, Justice Swatanter Kumar said: "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."

Pointing out that as of now it was not initiating any proceedings against any of the heads of the police forces in the states and union territories, the court in a candid warning said: "In the

event of non-compliance, 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."

Directing that the copies of its judgment be sent to all the concerned, including chief secretaries of all states, the court said: "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."

The court's order came as it dismissed a batch of applications filed by the dealers and distributors of tinted films for clarification and modification of its April 27, 2012 order banning the

pasting of films of any VLT on the safety glasses of the vehicles.

While dismissing the applications, the court said that the grounds raised to demonstrate that some other interpretation of the Rule 100 of Motor Vehicles Rules was possible were not a

ground of law.

The order said that grounds raised are primarily are the pleas of inconvenience.

"Enforcement of law, if causes any inconvenience, is no ground for rendering a provision on the statute book to be unenforceable," the court ruled.

It further held that the challenge to the legislative act can be raised on very limited grounds and certainly not the ones raised in the present application.

The court by its April 27 order, while interpreting the Rule 100 of the Motor Vehicles Rules 1989, had said: "Rule does not permit use of any other material except the safety glass

'manufactured as per the requirements of law'."

It held that 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).