No illegal tinted glass in cars from May 4: Supreme Court

April 28, 2012

Tint_Out

New Delhi, April 28: From May 4, if your car has black film on the front and rear windscreens that blocks light by more than 30% and the tint on the side window panes is more than 50%, then you could be in contempt of court in addition to being prosecuted as per the rules provided under the Motor Vehicles Act.

A bench of Chief Justice S H Kapadia and Justices A K Patnaik and Swatanter Kumar went by the limits prescribed in the MV Act and said anything beyond the visual light transmission (VLT) limit of 70% for the front and rear windshields and 50% for the side windows would be punishable.

The decision came on a PIL filed by Avishek Goenka, who had complained that cars with black film on window panes were being increasingly used for crimes, including sexual assault of women. He said though there was no express restraint on use of black film under the MV Act, it prescribed VLT limits.

Writing the judgment for the bench, Justice Kumar said, "On the plain reading of the rule, it is clear that cars must have safety glass having VLT at the time of manufacturing... In other words, the rule not impliedly but specifically prohibits alteration of such VLT by any means."

It's illegal, but tinted glass windows in cars in the city are a common sight. However, after the Supreme Court banned use of tinted glass beyond the permissible limit, such defaulters are going to have a tough time. Traffic police now intends to intensify the drive against use of tinted glass in vehicles.

There has been a traffic police drive against tinted car windows since last year. However, there has been a lull in the prosecutions this year, with only 9,279 such prosecutions till April 15 this year. Last year, for the same period, there had been as many as 30,582 prosecutions. Cops claim that better compliance has resulted in lower prosecutions.At present, car owners who are found not following the permitted percentage set for tinted glass have to either hand in their registration certificate or their driving licence along with the usual Rs 100 challan slapped on defaulters. "A notice is also issued to them by traffic police and the defaulter has to report to the area traffic inspector where the violation was recorded within 72 hours for inspection of the vehicle.

If the directions are not followed, the matter will be forwarded to the court," said joint commissioner of police (traffic) Satyendra Garg. As per the permissible limit there should be at least 70% transparency in the film on the front and rear windows while 50% transparency is required on the side windows."Usually, since the fine is just a meagre Rs 100, which is nothing compared to the money spent on films (ranging from Rs 700 to Rs 14,000 for the more fancy ones that protect from UV rays), it is not much of a deterrent to defaulters who continue to travel in the tinted vehicles. We hope that the stricter action will make the defaulters mindful of the rules," said a senior traffic police officer.Last year, as many as 45,649 vehicles with tinted glass were booked. "Significantly, a majority of these were repeat offenders, showing that despite being caught, Delhiites are mostly unmindful of the rules," said a senior traffic officer. This year, in a drive started on March 27, about 2,064 offenders have been booked till April 26.

Of them, 999 vehicle owners were made to remove the tinted film on the spot.The "Rules of Road Regulations, 1989" framed by the central government under Section 118 of the Motor Vehicles Act state that, "A driver of a motor vehicle and every other person using the road shall obey every direction given, whether by signal or otherwise, by a police officer or any authorized person for the time being in charge of the regulation of traffic." Under the rule, even a traffic constable has the power to issue notice to the defaulter, said traffic police. Tinted glass in vehicles has been a major source of concern for women's security as well as criminal activities. Delhi Police had earlier sent a proposal to the Union home ministry to amend the Motor Vehicles Act to enhance fines on use of tinted glass. The amendment is expected to increase the fine to a minimum of Rs 500. Tinted car windows have helped criminals especially in cases of rape and murder.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
September 12,2024

New Delhi, Sep 12: Madrasas are "unsuitable" places for children to receive "proper education" and the education imparted there is "not comprehensive" and is against the provisions of the Right to Education Act, the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) has told the Supreme Court.

The child rights body told the top court that children, who are not in formal schooling system, are deprived of their fundamental right to elementary education, including entitlements such as midday meal, uniform etc.

The NCPCR said madrassas merely teaching from a few NCERT books in the curriculum is a "mere guise" in the name of imparting education and does not ensure that the children are receiving formal and quality education.

"A madrassa is not only a unsuitable/unfit place to receive 'proper' education but also in absence of entitlements as provided under Sections 19, 21,22, 23, 24, 25, and 29 of the RTE Act," it said.

"Further, madrasas do not only render an unsatisfactory and insufficient model for education but also have an arbitrary mode of working which is wholly in absence of a standardised curriculum and functioning," the NCPCR said in its written submissions filed before the top court.

The child rights body stated that due to the absence of provisions of the RTE Act, 2009, the madrassas are also deprived of entitlement as in Section 21 of the Act of 2009.

"A madrassa works in an arbitrary manner and runs in an overall violation of the Constitutional mandate, RTE Act and the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. It cannot be overlooked that a child getting education in such an Institution will be devoid of basic knowledge of school curriculum which is provided in a school.

"A school is defined under Section 2(n) of the RTE Act, 2009, which means any recognised school imparting elementary education. A madrassa being out of this definition has no right to compel children or their families to receive madrassa education," the NCPCR said.

It said most of the madrassas fail to provide a holistic environment to students, including planning social events, or extracurricular activities for 'experiential learning.

In a breather to about 17 lakh madrassa students, the apex court on April 5 had stayed an order of the Allahabad High Court that scrapped the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 calling it "unconstitutional" and violative of the principle of secularism.

Observing that the issues raised in the petitions merit closer reflection, a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud had issued notices to the Centre, the Uttar Pradesh government and others on the pleas against the high court order.

The top court said had the high court "prima facie" misconstrued the provisions of the Act, which does not provide for any religious instruction.

The high court had on March 22 declared the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004, "unconstitutional" and violative of the principle of secularism, and asked the state government to accommodate students in the formal schooling system.

The high court had declared the law ultra vires on a writ petition filed by advocate Anshuman Singh Rathore.

It had said the state has "no power to create a board for religious education or to establish a board for school education only for a particular religion and philosophy associated with it."

"We hold that the Madarsa Act, 2004, is violative of the principle of secularism, which is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution," the high court had said.

The petitioner had challenged the constitutionality of the UP Madarsa Board as well as objected to the management of madrassas by the Minority Welfare Department instead of the education department.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
September 19,2024

UNGA.jpg

Narendra Modi-led government of India has abstained in the UN General Assembly on a resolution that demanded that Israel bring an end, “without delay”, to its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory within 12 months.

The 193-member General Assembly adopted the resolution, with 124 nations voting in favour, 14 against and 43 abstentions, including that by India.

Those abstaining included Australia, Canada, Germany, Italy, Nepal, Ukraine and the United Kingdom.

Israel and the US were among the nations who voted against the resolution titled ‘Advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legal consequences arising from Israel’s policies and practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and from the illegality of Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory’.

The resolution adopted Wednesday demanded that “Israel brings to an end without delay its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, which constitutes a wrongful act of a continuing character entailing its international responsibility, and do so no later than 12 months from the adoption of the present resolution.” 

The Palestinian-drafted resolution also strongly deplored the continued and total disregard and breaches by the Government of Israel of its obligations under the Charter of the United Nations, international law and the relevant United Nations resolutions, and stressed that such breaches seriously threaten regional and international peace and security.

It recognised that Israel must be held to account for any violations of international law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including any violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law, and that it “must bear the legal consequences of all its internationally wrongful acts, including by making reparation for the injury, including any damage, caused by such acts.”

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
September 17,2024

justice.jpg

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday halted unauthorised bulldozer action against private property, anywhere in the country, till October 1, dismissing concerns by the government that demolitions sanctioned after following due process could be impacted. 

The "heavens won't fall if we ask you to hold your hands till the next hearing", a bench of Justice BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan declared.

An irate top court - which has already come down hard, twice this month, on 'bulldozer justice' meted out by various state governments - also warned the government against "grandstanding" and "glorification" of this practice. "No demolition, till next, date, without permission of this court," the government was told, and warned the Election Commission may also be put on notice.

The court's reference to the poll panel is significant given elections are due in Jammu and Kashmir (the first Assembly election in a decade) and Haryana, where the Bharatiya Janata Party is looking to return to power. Elections are also due this year in BJP-ruled Maharashtra and Jharkhand.

The court, however, also clarified its order is not applicable to removal of encroachments in public spaces such as roads, railway tracks, water bodies, etc.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.