No bar on vehicle owners, aftermarket shops installing safety glazing on car windows: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently held that there is no bar on installing safety glazing on windows or windscreens of vehicles as long as they comply with the specifications stipulated by the Central Motor Vehicles Rules (CMV Rules) [M/s. George & Sons & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.]..Justice N Nagaresh further held that government authorities in the Police or Motor Vehicles departments are not legally authorised to penalise vehicle owners who have safety glazing on windows or windscreens as long as it complies with the standards of Visual Transmission of Light (VLT) stipulated under Rule 100 CMV Rules as amended in 2021."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 window," the judgment stated..Moreover, the Court held that there is no compulsion that the safety glazing has to be installed while manufacturing the vehicle. Vehicle owners too can get them installed as long as they comply with the rules, the Court said."Going by the provisions of sub-rule (4) 9of Rule 100 of CMV Rules), 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 judgment stated..The judgment was passed on two petitions challenging penal actions taken by the State for the sale or use of safety glazing on vehicle windows and windscreens.One petition was filed by a distributor of safety films, a vehicle owner who was fined for installing safety glazing, and the owners of a firm. The other petition was filed by shop owners who were notified by the Motor Vehicle Department that their registration would be cancelled if they sell safety films. .The petitioners contended that previous judgments of the Supreme Court in Avishek Goenka v. Union of India permitting only the use of safety glass and not safety glazing was based on a reading of the CMV Rules as it stood before its 2021 amendment. After the amendment, the use of safety glazing is also permitted, they argued. .However, the State authorities argued that the safety glazing needs to be installed at the stage of production by the manufacturer of the vehicle itself. They submitted that they were initiating penal action only against those vehicle owners who add the glazing later..The Court noted that the CMV Rules impose a duty on vehicle owners to maintain the standard VLT of the safety glazing.Therefore, the Court concluded that it cannot be stated that there is any prohibition on vehicle owners pasting a layer of plastic on the inner side of a pane of toughened glass or laminated-glass fitted by the manufacturer as stipulated by the CMV Rules and standards. The Court also observed that no officer checking a vehicle can reliably detect whether the safety glazing was installed by the manufacturer or the owner. Therefore, it rejected the State's contention that fines are imposed only in the latter case."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. Interpretation in such cases will have to be made always in favour of the individual and not in favour of the State or its authorities," the Court said in its judgment. .The petitioners were represented by Senior Advocate P Ravindran and advocates D Kishore, Lakshmi Ramdas and Meera Gopinath.Central Government Counsel B Ramachandran and M Shajna appeared for the Central government and Government Pleader KM Faizal appeared for the State..[Read Judgment]