AVISHEK GOENKAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

                      [2012] 4 S.C.R. 35


                     AVISHEK GOENKA                                 A
                                v.
                 UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
              (Writ Petition (C) No. 265 of 2011)
                        APRIL 27, 2012
                                                                    B
         [S.H. KAPADIA, CJI, A.K. PATNAIK AND
                SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.]

     Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989:
                                                                    c
       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
- 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 -
  Interpretation of statutes.
E
       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
police force should be deputed to monitor such offences. c

    Partly allowing the writ petition, the Court

     HELD: 1. The word 'tinted' means shade or hue as
per the dictionary. The rear and front and side glasses
of vehicles are provided with such shade or tint, and D
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. [Para 3] [45-B-C]                                     E

     2. 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 Act, 1988 was enacted, inter
alia, with the object and reason being to provide for F
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 G
place a motar 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
                                                           H
    38      SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2012] 4 S.C.R.


A 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
B 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
c 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 Act or the
  Rules made thereunder, whether due to alteration of
D
  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
E 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
F public place any motor vehicle which does not comply
  with the provisions of this Chapter. There are different
  Rules which deal with various aspects of construction
  and maintenance of vehicles including lights, brakes,
  gears and other aspects including overall dimensions of
G the vehicles. Rule 100 of the Rules concerns itself with
  the glass of windscreen and VLT of light of ~uch 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
H of windscreen wipers required to be fixed on the front
      AVISHEK GOENKA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.                39


    screen of the vehicle. The Rules deal with every minute          A
    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                 B
    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.     c
    These are the specifications which are in consonance
    with the prescribed IS No. 2553-Part 2 of 1992 and
    nothing is ambiguous or uncertain. Rules 104, 104A, 119
    and 120 demonstrate the extent of minuteness in the
    Rules and the efforts of the framers to ensure, not only
                                                                     0
    the appropriate manner of construction and maintenance
    of vehicle, but also the safety of other users of the road.
    [Paras 10-12] [47-A-H; 48-A-B; 49-E-H; 50-D]

         4. Rule 100 provides for glass of windscreen and
    windows of every motor vehicle. The glass used has to            E
    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 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           F
    side windows not less than 50 per cent and would
    conform to Indian Standards [IS:2553-Part2-1992]. 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. In face of   G
    the language of the Rule, the relief prayed for that there
    should be 100 per cent VLT cannot be granted. Rule 100
    of the Rules is a valid piece of legislation and is on the
    statute book. Once such provision exists, this Court
                                                                     H
I

~
I
   40       SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2012] 4 S.C.R.


A cannot issue directions contrary to the provision of law.
  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
B 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
c 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
0 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. If the glass so manufactured already has the VLT
E 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. The Rule requires a manufacturer
  to manufacture the vehicles with safety glasses with
  prescribed VLT. It is the minimum percentage that has
  been specified. The manufacturer may manufacture
F 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,
G 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
H
        AVISHEK GOENKA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.            41


      result in poor visibility, which again would be             A
      impermissible. [Paras 13-18] [50-E-G; 51-B-H; 52-A-B]

            6. Whatever are the rights 9f an individual, they are
       regulated and controlled by the statutory provisions of
       the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The citizens at 8
       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. C
      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. Rule 100 has to be
       interpreted in such a manner that it serves the legislative
       intent and the object of framing such rules, in preference D
      to one which would frustrate the very purpose of
      enacting the Rules as well as undermining the public
      safety and interest. Use of these black films have been
       proved to be criminal's paradise and a social evil. The
      petitioner rightly brought on record the unanimous view E
      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 F
      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. The private G
      interest would stand subordinate to public good. In the
      instant 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
                                                                  H

  I

"""
    42      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012] 4 S.C.R.


A   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. [Paras 7, 19, 21) [46-B-C; 52-C-G; 53-E]

         Hira Tikoo v. Union Territory of Chandigarh (2004) 6
B
    SCC 765: 2004(1) Suppl. SCR 65; Friends Colony
    Development Committee v. Stateof Orissa AIR 2005 SC 1 -
    relied on.

         7. Rule 100(2) specifies the VLT percentage of the
c   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,
D   refer to the International Standard ISO 3538 on this issue,
    providing for VLT percentage of 70 and 75 per cent
    respectively. 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
E   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 ma.terial upon the windscreen or the side windows
    is impermissible in law. It is the VLT of the safety glass
F   without any additional material being pasted upon the
    safety glasses which must conform with manufacture
    specifications. [Paras 22, 23) [53-H; 54-A-D]

        8. Another issue raised in the instant writ petition was
    regarding use of black films on vehicles of certain VIPs/
G   VVIPs for security reasons. Even this practice is not
    supported by law, as no notification by the competent
    authority has been brought to court's notice, giving
    exemption to such vehicles from the operation of Rule
    100 or any of its provisions. The cases of the persons
H   who have been provided with Z and Z+ security category
  AVISHEK GOENKA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.              43


 may be considered by a Committee consisting of the            A
 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       s
 be provided only in relation to official cars of VIPsNVIPs,
 depending upon the category of security 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          c
regard. 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. The manufacturer
                                                               0
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. For the             E
reasons afore-stated, 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 is prohibited. The Home
Secretary, Director General/Commissioner of Police of the      F
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. [Paras 24-27) [54-E-H; 55-A-E]
                                                               G
                    Case Law Reference:
    2004 (1) Suppl. SCR 65       referred to     Para 20
    AIR 2005 SC 1                referred to     Para 20
                                                               H
    44       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 4 S.C.R.


A       CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No.
    265 of 2011.

         Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

         Avishek Goenka Petitioner-In-Person.
B
          '
        Gaurab   Banerji, ASG, T.A. Khan, S.A. Haseeb, B.K.
    Prasad for the Respondents.

         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c        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
D   increase is use of black films on windows/windshields of four-
    wheeled vehicles. The petitioner, as a public spirited person,
    has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under
    Article 32 of the Constitution in the present public interest
    litigation, praying for certain directions to stop this menace.
E   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 short 'VLT') only and, to that extent, the
    petitioner challenges the correctness of Rule 100 of the Motor
F   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
G   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
H   acts are committed in or with the aid of vehicles having black
  AVISHEK GOENKA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.                    45
           [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

films pasted on the side windows and on the screens of the           A
vehicles. It is stated that because of nonobservance 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.                                B

      3. The word 'tinted' means shade or hue as per the
dictionary. The rear and front and side glasses of vehicles are
provided with such shade or tint, and therefore, they are widely
referred to as 'tinted glasses', which is different from 'black      C
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      D
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.            ·                 E

      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
                                                                     F
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 has    G
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.                                           H
    46        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2012] 4 S.C.R.


A        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.
B
          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
C   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
D from the police department of different States like Tamil Nadu,
  West Bengal, Delhi and Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi.
  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
E 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
F 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
G 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
H   us to refer to the relevant laws.
  AVISHEK GOENKA v. UNION OF !NOIA AND ANR.                     47
           [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
       10. The Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 was enacted to                  A
consolidate and amend the laws relating to motor vehicles. This
Act was subjected to various amendments. Finally, the Motor
 Vehicles 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       B
 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       C
 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       D
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           E
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 Act or the Rules
made thereunder, whether due to alteration of vehicle violative        F
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        G
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       H
    48           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 4 S.C.R.


A   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.
B   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:-
c        "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
D        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
E                 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;

F         (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
G        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
H        conform to Indian Standards [IS: 2553-Part 2-1992];
  AVISHEK GOENKA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.                   49
           [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

     (3) The glass of the front windscreen of every motor vehicle   A
     (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:
                                                                    B
     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    C
     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     D
    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."                E

     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
                                                                    F
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      G
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 two       H
    50        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2012] 4 S.C.R.


A   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
B   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
c   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
D   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
E   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 window of every motor vehicle shall be
    such and shall be maintained in such a condition that VLT is
F   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
G   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
H
  AVISHEK GOENKA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.                     51
           [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

2010, in Delhi alone. This itself shows an increasing trend of        A
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            B
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.
                                                                      c
      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.          D
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           E
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,        F
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        G
violation of Rule 100 as well as the prescribed IS. Secondly,
the rule requires a manufacturer to manufacture the vehicles
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         H
    52       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012] 4 S.C.R.


A   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
B   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.
c         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
D   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 and interest. Use of these
    black films have been proved to be criminal's paradise and a
E   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
F   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
G   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
H
  AVISHEK GOENKA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.                      53
           [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

allotment was found to be contravening other statutory                 A
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 suprema          B
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                c
[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.      D
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           E
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 15 th December, 1998 in Civil Appeal No. 3700 of 1999
titled Chandigarh Administration and Others v. Namit Kumar             F
& Ors., had permitted the use of 'light 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 sec
446] made a direction that mandate of sub-Rule (2) of Rule 100         G
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            H
    54        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 4 S.C.R.


A 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
B 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
C 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
  windscreen or the side windows is impermissible in law. It is
  the VLT of the safety glass without any additional material being
D 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
E   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
F   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
G   State/Centre. It wilt 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
H   the category of security that such person has been awarded
  AVISHEK GOENKA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.                   55
           [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

by the competent authority. The appropriate government is free      A
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
                                                                    8
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                C
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.
                                                                    D
     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           E
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.

      28. With the above directions, we partially allow this writ   F
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.

D.G.                               Writ Petition partly allowed.