No Prohibition On Installing Sun Films On Vehicles If It Does Not Violate Stipulated VLT & Indian Standards: Kerala HC

A Single Bench of Justice N. Nagaresh observed, “The State Government or its officials are not legally justified in penalising owners of any motor vehicles, the windscreens or window glasses of which are maintained with “Safety Glass” or “Safety Glazing”, including “Glazing Faced with Plastics” which conforms to the Indian Standard; IS 2553 (Part 2) (First Revision):2019 and providing not less than 70% visual transmission of light (VLT) on the windscreen and rear window and 50% visual transmission of light (VLT) on the side windows.”

The Court noted that  “Safety Glazing or the Glazing Faced with Plastics” is a combination of two components manufactured by two distinct manufacturers, which the manufacturer of the vehicle will be installing. "Going by the provisions of sub-rule (4), there is no prohibition that such installation cannot be made by the owner. The mandate of the Rule is that it should not in any manner violate the stipulated VLT and the Indian Standard.", the Court added.

Senior Advocate P. Ravindran appeared for the petitioners, while CGC Mini Gopinath represented the respondents.

The Court had to determine whether the State Government in the Departments of Police or Motor Vehicles were legally authorised to penalise owners of motor vehicles who were maintaining the standards of VLT as specified under Rule 100 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (CMV Rules), by using Safety Glazing.

The petitioners were aggrieved by the action of the Regional Transport Officer (RTO) in issuing notices threatening cancellation of their registration on the ground that their shops sold vehicle accessories and affixing sun films in motor vehicles causing alteration, in violation of Sections 52 and 182A(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act).

The High Court referred to the Apex Court’s decision in Avishek Goenka v. Union of India (2012) wherein it was held that using tinted or black films in vehicles' glass was prohibited. It was held that competent officers of the Traffic Police or any other officer can impose a fine as provided under the MV Act and Rules.

The Court pointed out that the Supreme Court had subsequently clarified that it was only the Safety Glass alone that could be used by the manufacturer of the vehicle with requisite VLT, without external aid of any kind of material, including film pasted on the safety glasses.

“Apart from “Safety Glass”, usage of “Safety Glazing” is also now permitted, in view of the amendment made with effect from 01.04.2021. But, the “Safety Glazing” used has to conform the Indian Standard under Ext.P5 and should be within the stipulated percentage of VLT,” the Court remarked.

The Court also pointed out, “If a premium car of high value is permitted to be fitted by the manufacturer with “Safety Glass” or “Safety Glazing” within the limit of VLT permissible, then it will be illegal to penalise the owner of a small car of less value, alleging that the permissible material is fixed by himself. Narrow interpretation of a provision in a manner enabling any punitive action against individuals cannot be made by the court which will jeoparadise the right of the individual, if there is no actual violation or contravention.”

Consequently, the Court held that the challans issued against the petitioners were illegal and unsustainable in law.

Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the petition.

Cause Title: M/s. George & Sons & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:68346)

Appearance:

Petitioners: Senior Advocate P. Ravindran; Advocates D. Kishore, Lakshmi Ramadas Meera Gopinath

Respondents: CGC Mini Gopinath; Advocate K.S.Prenjith Kumar; GP K.M.Faizal

Click here to read/download the Judgment