Short analysis of Supreme Court’s unreasonable decision
to ban the use of solar films on cars in India.
It is very rare for judges to reach out of their Ivory Tower and express about the ground realities of life. In one such rare occasion, a Supreme Court of India’s judge G S Singhvi speaking at a seminar observed:
“It is sad to say that my generation has failed the nation. In a country where 700 million people live below the poverty line, we tend to talk about justice. We talk about our fundamental rights being trampled upon but what about those people who do not get two square meals a day, have no right to education, shelter, clothing and other basic amenities. The country is divided into rural and urban and the idea about equality and fraternity needs to be pondered about and the entire process of development had taken place at the cost of rural people ……….. I feel guilty when I read about equality and fraternity and think about the labourers and farmers who have made our lives comfortable and easy. The ‘jan sevaks’ (Public Servants) are fast becoming our masters, the first citizens followed by the rich and the poor only as third class citizens.”
“Constitutionalism in India means that people’s sovereignty is supreme and unlimited and the constituents of the state have limited powers.”
The VIP class problems:
The problem is that we all know about the failures. But what will take it to put into practice? What about the class called VIP’s? Who are they and why they are VIP’s? Problem is that only thing we see in focus is MONEY and DOMINATION. All we have to do is to do our own work diligently, even if some time, the reciprocation is not fair. It is not easy but practice can make anyone perfect. I will misquote Gandhi: ‘When you do something, remember the face of the poorest of poor’.
Constitutionalism and judicial fiats:
As regards the second part, it is another story. While Constitutionalism means Rule of law and not Fiats issued at Will; another decision of Supreme Court nearly rubs it on wrong way. Following direction has been given by Supreme Court:
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 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. ….. 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. (Full judgment is here.)
Natural justice not followed:
By one stroke of pen, an entire industry has been struck off. I wonder if they were a party to it. If not then it is violative of principles of natural justice. It beyond logical comprehension that if Manufacturer does not apply tinted glasses, I can not apply solar film to it? Off course it must meet statutory standard. Merely because law enforcement agency do not have technical equipment, all films are to be removed. By same logic why not every person be kept in lock and key at night as most crimes are committed at night. Curfew will be even better. Passes can be issued to VIP’s to wander at night, under Rules. Yes ban the liquor/Alcohol. A large number crime are committed under its influence. Licenses can be issued to VIP’s for that as well.
Consideration of irrelevant facts:
Judgment relies upon the practice of not using films in countries where the maximum temperature never exceeds 25 degrees. Here it touches 48 degrees centigrade every summer. In fact the word ‘weather’ does not even occurs in the judgment. The very basis of applying solar films is missing. Thus the judgment shall be hit by Wednesbury’s arbitrariness as it excludes an important and relevant fact from consideration while deciding an issue and therefore is not a reasonable judgment. Those interested in full judgment of Wednesbury’s case, can find it here. Some other arguments have been raised by another Gentleman here and therefore are not repeated.
Hypocrisy of Supreme Court in entertaining direct petition:
Another legal issue is that this order has been passed under article 32 of Constitution and is purported to enforce article 21 of Constitution in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). Article 21 guarantees right to life to every citizen. If today a Habeas Corpus petition is filed in Supreme Court saying that life of a girl is in danger, Supreme Court will not entertain that petition and ask the party to go to respective High Court. Was solar film matter so important that Supreme Court could not have waited for the opinion of High Courts?
Photo credit: Wikipedia