AVISHEK GOENKAversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

                        [2012] 6 S.C.R. 1126


A                       AVISHEK GOENKA
                                  v.
                     UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
    IA NOS. 4, 5, IA NOS. 6-8, IA. NOS. 9-11, 12, 13, 14 AND
                                 15
B                                IN
               Writ Petition (Civil) No. 265 of 2011
                          AUGUST 3, 2012
        [A.K. PATNAIK AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.)
c
       Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 - Rule 100 - By judgment
  dated 27th April, 2012 passed in writ petition (civil) no.265 of
  2011, Supreme Court had prohibited the use of black films
  of any Visual Light Transmission (VL T) percentage or any
o other material upon the safety glasses, windscreens (front and
  rear) and side glasses of all vehicles throughout the country
  - Supreme Court took the view that Rule 100 does not permit
  use of any other material except the safety glass
  'manufactured as per the requirements of law' - Applications
E for modification !clarification of the judgment dated 27th Apri/"-
  2012 - Held: Liable to be dismissed - In terms of Rule 100,
  no material including films of any VLT can be pasted on the
  safety glasses of the car and this law is required to be enforced
  - Enforcement of law, if causes any inconvenience, is no
  ground for rendering a provision on the statute book to be
F unenforceable - Individual inconvenience cannot be a ground·
  for giving the law a different interpretation - The expression
  'maintained' used in r. 100 has to be construed ejusdem
  generis to manufacture and cannot be interpreted in a manner
  that alterations to motor vehicles in violation of the specific
G rules have been impliedly permitted under the language of
  the Rule itself - Suggestion given that the expression 'we
  prohibit the use of black film of any VLT percentage or any
  other material upon safety glasses' in Para 27 of the judgment

H                               1126
   AVISHEK GOENKA v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.                 1127


dated 27th April 2012 should be substituted by 'we prohibit         A
the use of black films of impermissible VLT percentage or any
other material upon the safety glasses' would be in complete
violation of the substantive part of the judgment - It is not the
extent of VLT percentage of films which is objectionable under
the Rules but it is the very use of black films or any other        8
material, which is impermissible to be used on the safety
glasses -Consequential directions passed.                       -

     By judgment dated 27th April, 2012 passed in wriJ
petition (civil) l'!_o.265 of 2011, this Court had prohibited
the use of black films of any Visual Light Transmission             C
(VLT) percentage or any other material upon the safety
glasses, windscreens (front and rear) and side glasses
of all vehicles throughout the country.

     The applicants filed the instant IAs, seeking                  D
modification I clarification of the said judgm~nt dated 27th
April 2012 on various grounds: •1) that they were not
parties to the writ petition and were not aware of the
proceedings before this Court and so their submissions
could not be considered by the Court; 2) that the use of            E
films or even black films is permissible scientifically and
in law; 3) that Rule 100(2) of the Motor Vehicle Rules,
1989 uses the expression 'maintained' which implies that
safety glasses, including the wind screen, can be
maintained with requisite VLT percentage even by use of             F
black films; and 4) that para 27 of the judgment dated
27th April 2012 nee~ modification by substituting the
words 'use of black films of any VLT percentage' by the
words 'use of black films of impermissible VLT
percentage".
                                                                    G
     Dismissing the IAs, the Court

    HELD: 1. In the main Writ Petition no.265 of 2011, and
even in these applications, there was no challenge to
Rule 100 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. This Court              H
    1128    SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2012] 6 S.C.R.


A vide its judgment dated 27th April, 2012, had interpreted
  the said Rule de hors the other factors. Once this Court
   interprets a provision of law, the law so declared would
   be the law of the land in terms of Article 141 of the
   Constitution. The law so declared is binding on all and
8 must be enforced in terms thereof. Having interpreted the
   Rule to mean that it is the safety glasses alone with
  ·requisite VLT that can be fixed in a vehicle, it is not for
   this Court to change the language of the said Rule. It
   would, primarily, be a legislative function and no role
C herein, is to be performed by this Court. [Para 11] [1135-
   G-H; 1136-A-C]

        Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban and Ors.
    (2000) 7 sec 269 - referred to.

D      2. In these applications, some grounds were taken to
  demonstrate that some other interpretation of the
  provision was possible. These grounds, firstly, were not .
  grounds of law. They were primarily the grounds of
  inconvenience. Enforcement of law, if causes any
E inconvenience, is no ground for rendering a provision on
  the statute book to be unenforceable. The challenge to
  the legislative act can be raised on very limited grounds
  and certainly not the ones raised in the present
  application. In fact, all the counsel appearing for various
F applicants fairly conceded that they were not raising any
  challenge to Rule 1_00 of the Rules. Once that position is
  accepted, there is no reason to alter the interpretation
  given to the said Rule in the judgment dated 27th April,
  2012. [Para 12] [1136-C-E]
G      3. The judgment dated 27th April, 2012 was passed
  in a Public Interest Litigation and the orders passed· by
  this Court would be operative in rem. It was neither
  expected of the Court nor is it the requirement of law that
  the Court should have issued notice to every shopkeeper
H selling the films, every distributor distributing the films
    AVISHEK GOENKA v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.            1129


and every manufacturer manufacturing the films. But, in        A
any case, this was a widely covered matter by the Press.
It was incumbent upon the applicants to approach the
Court, if they wanted to be heard at that stage. [Para 13)
[1136-F-H]
                                                               8
     4. Not only the present judgment but even the
previous judgments of this Court, in the cases referred
to in the judgment dated 27th April, 2012, in some detail
have never permitted use of films on the glasses. What
the Court permitted was tinted glasses with requisite VLT.     C
Thus, the view of this Court has been consistent and
does not require any clarification or modification. [Para
14) [1137-B-C]

      5. Equally, without substance and merit is the
 submission that the expression 'maintained' used in Rule      D
 100 would imply that subsequent to manufacturing, the
 car can be maintained by use of films with requisite VLT
 of 70 per cent and 50 per cent respectively. In the
 judgment, after discussing the scheme of the Act, the
 Rules framed thereunder and Rule 100 read in                  E
 conjunction with Indian Standard No.2553 Part II of 1992,
 this court took the view that the Rule does not permit use
 of any other material except the safety glass
 'manufactured as per the requirements of law'. Rule 100
 categorically states that 'safety glass' is the glass which   F
 is to be manufactured as per the specification and
 requirements of explanation to Rule 100(1). It is only the
·Safety glasses alone that can be used by the
 manufacturer of the vehicle. The requisite VLT has to be
 70 per cent and 50 per cent of the screen and side            G
 windows respectively, without external aid of any kind of
 material, including the films pasted on the safety glasses.
 The use of film on the glass would change the very
 concept and requirements of safety glass in accordance
 with law. The expression 'maintained' has to be
                                                               H
    1130    SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2012] 6 S.C.R.


A construed to say that, what is required to be
  manufactured in accordance with law should be
  continued to be maintained as such. 'Maintenance' has
  to be construed ejusdem generis to manufacture and
  cannot be interpreted in a manner that alterations to motor
B vehicles in violation of the specific rules have been
  impliedly permitted under the language of the Rule itself.
  The basic features and requirements of safety glass are
  not subject to any alteration. If the interpretation given by
  the applicants is accepted, it would frustrate the very
c purpose of enacting Rule 100 and would also hurt the
  safety requirements of a motor vehicle as required under
  the Act. [Para 15] [1137-C-H; 1138-A-B]

         6. The suggestion given by the applicants that the
    expression 'we prohibit the use of black film of any VLT
D   percentage or any other material upon safety glasses' in
    Para 27 of the judgment dated 27th April 2012 should be
    substituted by 'we prohibit the use of black films of
    impermissible VLT percentage or any other material upon
    the safety glasses' would be in complete violation of the
E   substantive part of the judgment. It is not the extent of
    VLT percentage of films which is objectionable under the
    Rules but it is the very use of black films or any other
    material, which is impermissible to be used on the safety
    glasses. Once the prescribed specifications do not
F   contemplate use of any other material except what is
    specified in the Explanation to Rule 100(1), then the use
    of any sueh material by implication cannot be permitted.
    Quando a/iquld prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per
    obliquum. If the plain language in para 27 is substituted,
G   it would render the entire judgment ineffective and
    contradictory in terms. [Para 17)"[1138-F-H; 1139-A]

       7.1. The manufacturer and distributors placed certain
    material, including some photographs and reports of the

H
   AVISHEK GOENKA v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.             1131


American Cancer Society, to show that mostly skin cancer       A
is caused by too much exposure to ultra-violet rays. From
these photographs, attempt was made to show that in the
day time when the films are pasted upon the safety glasses,
still the face and the body of the occupant of the car is
visible from outside. It is also stated that certain           8
amendments were proposed in the Code of Virginia
relating to the use of sun shading and tinting films, on the
motor vehicles. Relying upon the material relating to
America, it was stated that there are large number of cancer
cases in USA and the framers of the law have amended           C
the provisions or are in the process of amending the
provisions. To counter this, the petitioner has filed a
detailed reply supported by various documents which
shows that tinted glasses have been banned in a number
of countries and it is not permissible to use such glasses
on the windows of the vehicle. However, the controversy        0
arising from the submissions founded on factual matrix
does not call for any determination before this Court. The
environment, atmosphere and geographical conditions of
each country are different. The level of tolerance and
likelihood of exposure to a disease through sun rays or        E
otherwise are subjective matters incapable of being
examined objectively in judicial sense. The Courts are
neither required to venture upon such determination nor
would it be advisable. [Paras 18, 19 and 20] (1139-B-F;
1140-A-C]                                                      F

     7.2. There are a large number of preventive measures
that can be taken by a person who needs to protect
himself from the ultra-violet rays. Use of creams, sun-shed
and other amenities would be beneficial for the individual G
alleged to be intolerable to sun rays. It does not require
change of a permanent character in the motor vehicle, that
too, in utter violation of the provisions of the statute. The'
interpretation of law is not founded on a single
circumstance, particularly when such circumstance is so
                                                               H
    1132   SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2012) 6 S.C.R.


A very individualistic. The Court is not expected to go into
  individual cases wtiile dealing with interpretation of law.
  It is a settled canon of interpretative jurisprudence that
  hardship of few cannot be the basis for determining the
  validity of any statute. The law must be interpreted and
8 applied on its plain language. Individual inconvenience
  cannot be a ground for giving the law a different
  interpretation. [Paras 21, 22] (1140-D-G]

        Saurabh Chaudri & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. AIR
    2004 SC 361: 2003 (5) Suppl. SCR 152 - referred to.
c
       8. Use of black films is a clear violation of law. In
  terms of Rule 100, no material including films of any VLT
  can be pasted on the safety glasses of the car and this
  law is required to be enforced without demur and delay.
o Thus, the following orders are passed: a) All the
  applications filed for clarification and modification are
  dismissed; b) All the Director Generals of .Police/
  Commissioners of Police are hereby again directed to
  ensure complete compliance of the judgment of this
E Court in its true spirit and substance. They shall not
  permit pasting of any material, including films of any VLT,
  on the safety glasses of any vehicle. It is reiterated that
  the police authorities shall not only challan the offenders
  but ensure that the black or any other films or material
  pasted on the safety glasses are removed forthwith and
F c) In the event of non-compliance of the judgment of this
  Court now, and upon it being brought to the notice of this
  Court, the Court shall be compelled to take appropriate
  action under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts
  Act, 1971 without any further notice to the said officers.
G [Para 24] (1141-D-F; 1142-A-B]
                     Case Law Reference:
       (2000) 1 sec 269          referred to         Para 3

H
   AVISHEK GOENKA v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.                1133


    2003 (5) Suppl. SCR 152 referred to               Para 21      A

     CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : I.A. Nos. 4, 5, 6-8, 9-
11, 12, 13, 14 and 15.

                                 IN
                                                                   B
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 265 of 2011.

    Under Article 32 of Constitution of India.
     Petitioner-In-Person.
     Gaurab Banerjee, ASG, Soli J. Sorabjee, Rajesh Kumar,
                                                                   c
R.K. Srivastava, T.A. Khan, D.S. Mahra, S.A. Haseeb, R.K.
Rathore, S.S. Rawat, Sunita Sharma, Debesh Panda, Nitish
Gupta, Kedar Nath Tripathy, A.N. Haksar, Ranjan Kumar
Pandey, Vijay Sondhi, Sanjay Kumar, Wasim Beg, Promod
Nair, Mohit Bakshi, Dheeraj Nair, P.P. Hegde, Charu Ambwani,       D
Prashant Kumar, AP & J Chambers, Manu Nair, Anuj Berry,
Tanuj Bhushan (for Suresh A. Shroff & Co.), Gopal Jain, Nandini
gore, Debmalya Banerjee, Abhishek Roy, Mahak Bhalla, R.N.
Karanjawala, Manik Karanjawla, S. Nayyar (for Karanjawala &
Co.), for the Respondents.                                         E
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
    SWATANTER KUMAR, J. 1. The applications for
impleadment and intervention are allowed subject to just
exceptions. All applications for placing documents on record       F
are also allowed.
     2. I.A. No. 5 of 2012 has been filed by the Dealers and
Distributors of tinted films in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 265 of
2011 under Order XVIII, Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules,
1966 against the dismissal of two interim applications, i.e.,      G
seeking permission to file application for impleadment and
application for modification by the Registrar of this Court vide
his Order dated 16th May, 2012.
     3. The learned Registrar vide the impugned order noticed      H
    1134     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012) 6 S.C.R.


A that application for impleadment was not maintainable
  inasmuch as the writ petition in which the application was filed
  has already been disposed of. In regard to tile-application for
  modification, according to the applicants, the petitioner
  suppressed various aspects of the matter and-misled the court
B in passing the order and the same order was therefore, liable
  to be modified. Dealing with this contention, the learned
  Registrar, while referring to the judgment of this Court in Delhi
  Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban and Ors. [(2000) 7 SCC
  269) held that the application, in fact, was an application for
c review and not for modification. Thus, he declined to receive
  the application and registered the same in accordance with the
  Rules of the Supreme Court.
        4. We hardly find any error of law in the Order 9f the
  Registrar under appeal, but-we consider it entirely unnecessary
D to deliberate upon this issue in any further detail, since, we have
  permitted the applicants to address the Court on merits of the
  application. Keeping in view the fact that a number of other
  applications have been filed for clarification and modification
  of the judgment of this Court dated 27th April, 2012, without
E commenting upon the merit or otherwise of the present appeal,
  we would deal only wittr the application for modification or
  clarification filed by these applicants along with o~hers.
         5. I.A. No. 15 has been filed by the International Window
    Film Association. I.A. No. 4 has been filed on behalf of Vipul
F   Gambhir.
        6. An unnumbered I.A. of 2012 is filed by 3M India Ltd.
    Another unnumbered I.A. has been filed on behalf of the dealers
    and distributors of the tinted films.
G         7. I.A. No. 3 of 2012, an application on behalf of the
    petitioner to appear in person, is allowed.

        8. I.A. No. 7 of 2012 has been filed on behalf of M/s.
  Garware Polyester Ltd. I.A. No. 10 of 2012 is an application
H filed by M/s. Car Owners and Consumer Associati6n.
   AVISHEK GOENKA v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.                  1135
           [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

     9. Another unnumbered I.A. has been filed on behalf of M/       A
s. Gras lmpex Pvt. Ltd. All these applicatjons have been filed
by various applicants seeking clarification' and/or modification
of the judgment of this Court dated 27th April, 2012 on various
grounds.
                                                                     8
       10. The petitioner has filed I.A. No. 11 of 2012 by way of
  a common reply to the grounds taken in all these applications
  and has also placed certain documents on record. The various
  applicants above-named have sought modification/clarification
  of the judgment of this Court dated 27th April, 2012 principally   C
. and with emphasis on the following grounds :

      (1)    That the applicants were not parties to the writ
             petition and were not aware of the proceedings
             before this Court. Thus, their submissions could not
             be considered by the Court, hence the judgment of       D
             the Court requires modification.

       (2)   The applicants have placed material and reports on
             record that the use of films or even black films is
             permissible scientifically and in law.
                                                                     E
       (3)   It is contended that Rule 100(2) uses the
             expression 'maintained' which implies that safety
             glasses, including the wind screen, can be
             maintained with requisite VLT percentage even by
             use of black films.                                     F

       (4)   Lastly, it is contended that para 27 of the judgment
             needs modification by substituting the words 'use
             of black films of any VLT percentage' by the words
             'use of black films of impermissible VLT                G
             percentage".

     11. We must notice at the very threshold that in the main
Writ Petition no. 265 of 2011 and even in the present
applications, there is no challenge to Rule 100 of the Motor
                                                                     H
    1136     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012) 6 S.C.R.


A Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short, 'the Rules'}. This Court vide its
  judgment dated 27th April, 2012, has interpreted the said Rule
  de hors the other factors. Once this Court interprets a provision
  of law, the law so declared would be the law of the land in terms
  of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The law so declared
B is binding on all and must be enforced in terms thereof. Having
  interpreted the Rule to mean that it is the safety glasses alone
  with requisite VLT that can be fixed in a vehicle, it is not for this
  Court to change the language of the said Rule. It would,
  primarily, be a legislative function and no role herein, is to be
c performed by this Court.
         12. In the applications before us, as already noticed, some
  grounds have been taken to demonstrate that some other
  interpretation of the provision was possible. These grounds,
  firstly, are not grounds of law. They are primarily the grounds
D of inconvenience. Enforcement of law, if causes any
  inconvenience, is no ground for rendering a provision on the
  statute book to be unenforceable. The challenge to the
  legislative act can be raised on very limited grounds and
  certainly not the ones raised in the present application. In fact,
E all the learned counsel appearing for various applicants fairly
  conceded that they were not raising any challenge to Rule 100
  of the Rules. Once that position is accepted, we see no reason
  to alter the interpretation given by us to the said Rule in our
  judgment dated 27th April, 2012.
F
         13. Still, we will proceed to discuss the contentions raised ..
  The judgment dated 27th April, 2012 was passed in a Public
                                                                           1




  Interest Litigation and the orders passed by this Court would
  be operative in rem. It wa& neither expected of the Court nor is
  it the requirement of law that the Court should have issued
G notice to every shopkeeper selling the films, every distributor
  distributing the films and every manufacturer manufacturing the
  films. But, in any case, this was a widely covered matter by the
  Press. It was incumbent upon the applicants to approach the
  Court, if they wanted to be heard at that stage. The writ petition
H was instituted on 6th May, 2011 and the judgment in the case
   AVISHEK GOENKA v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.                 1137
           [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

was pronounced after hearing all concerned, including the Union     A
Government, on 27th April, 2012, nearly after a year. Hence,
this ground raised by the applicants requires noticing only for
being rejected.

      14. Not only the present judgment but even the previous       B
judgments of this Court, in the cases referred to in the judgment
dated 27th April, 2012, in some detail have never permitted use
of films on the glasses. What the Court permitted was tinted
glasses with requisite VLT. Thus, the view of this Court has
been consistent and does not require any clarification or           C
modification.

      15. Equally, without substance and merit is the submission
that the expression 'maintained' used in Rule 100 would imply
that subsequent to manufacturing, the car can be maintained
by use of films with requisite VLT of 70 per cent and 50 per        D
cent respectively. In the judgment, after discussing the scheme
of the Act, the Rules framed thereunder and Rule 100 read in
conjunction with Indian Standard No.2553 Part II of 1992, this
court took the view that the Rule does not permit use of any
other material except the safety glass 'manufactured as per the     E
requirements of law'. Rule 100 categorically states that 'safety
glass' is the glass which is to be manufactured as per the
specification and requirements of explanation to Rule 100(1).
It is only the safety glasses alone that can be used by the
manufacturer of the vehicle. The requisite VLT has to be 70 per     F
cent and 50 per cent of the screen and side windows
respectively, without external aid of any kind of material,
including the films pasted on the safety glasses. The use of film
on the glass would change the very concept and requirements
of safety glass in accordance with law. The expression              G
'maintained' has to be construed to say that, what is required
to be manufactured in accordance with law should be continued
to be maintained as such. 'Maintenance' has to be construed
ejusdem generis to manufacture and cannot be interpreted in
a manner that alterations to motor vehicles in violation of the
                                                                    H
    1138     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 6 S.C.R.


A specific rules have been impliedly permitted under the language
  of the Rule itself. The basic features and requirements of safety
  glass are not subject to any alteration. If the interpretation given
  by the applicants is accepted, it would frustrate the very purpose
  of enacting Rule 100 and would also hurt the safety
B requirements of a motor vehicle as required under the Act.
  Number of Rules have been discussed in the judgment dated
  27th April, 2012 to demonstrate that these Rules are required
  to be strictly construed otherwise they would lead to disastrous
  results and would frustrate the very purpose of enacting such
c law.
         16. Now, we may come to the last contention that para 27
    of the judgment needs modification as noticed above. Para 27
    of the judgment reads as under:

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
E       Police of the respective States/Centre shall ensure
        compliance with this direction. The directions contained in
        this judgment shall become operative and enforceable with
        effect frc:>m 4th May, 2012."

F       17. According to the applicant, the expression 'we prohibit
  the use of black film of any VLT percentage or any other
  material upon safety glasses' should be substituted by 'we
  prohibit the use of black films of impermissible VLT percentage
  or any other material upon the safety glasses'. The suggestion
  of the applicants would be in complete violation of the
G substantive part of the judgment. We have already noticed that
  it is not the extent of VLT percentage of films which is
  objectionable under the Rules but it is the very use of black films
  or any other material, which is impermissible to be used on the
  safety glasses. Once the prescribed specifications do not
H contemplate use of any other material except what is specified
   AVISHEK GOENKA v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.                    1139
           [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

in the Explanation to Rule 100(1), then the use of any such            A
material by implication cannot be permitted. Quando aliquid
prohibetur ex di recto, prohibetur et per obliquum. If we substitute
the plain language in para 27, it would render the entire
judgment ineffective and contradictory in terms. Having already
held that no material, including the films, can be used on the         8
safety glasses, there is no occasion for us to accept this
contention as well.

     18. The manufacturer and distributors have placed certain
material before us, including some photographs and reports of
the American Cancer Society, to show that mostly skin cancer           C
is caused by too much exposure to ultra-violet rays. From these
photographs, attempt is made to show that in the day time when
the films are pasted upon the safety glasses, still the face and
the body of the occupant of the car is visible from outside. It is
also stated that certain amendments were proposed in the               D
Code of Virginia relating to the use of sun shading and tinting
films, on the motor vehicles. Relying upon the material relating
to America, it is stated that there are large number of cancer
cases in USA and the framers of the law have amended the
provisions or are in the process of amending the provisions.           E
This itself shows that it is a case of change in law and not one
of improper interpretation, which is not the function of this Court.

      19. To counter this, the petitioner has filed a detailed reply
supported by various documents. This shows that tinted
                                                                       F
glasses have been banned in a number of countries and it is
not permissible to use such glasses on the windows of the
vehicle. Annexure A 1 and A3 have been placed on record in
relation to New South Wales, Australia, Afghanistan and some
other countries. He has also placed on record a complete
research article on the cancer scenario in India with future           G
perspective which has specifically compared India as a
developing country with developed countries like USA and has
found that cancer is much less in India despite the fact that most
of the Indian population is exposed to ultra-violet ravs for the
                                                                       H
    1140     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012] 6 S.C.R.


A   larger part of the day for earning their livelihood for their daily
    works, business and other activities.

       20. This controversy arising from the submissions founded
  on factual matrix does not, in our opinion, call for any
  determination before this Court. As already noticed, the Court
8 has interpreted Rule 100 as it exists on the statute book. The
  environment, atmosphere and geographical conditions of each
  country are different. The level of tolerance and likelihood of
  exposure to a disease through sun rays or otherwise are
  subjective matters incapable of being examined objectively in
C judicial sense. The Courts are neither required to venture upon
  such determination nor would it be advisable.

       21. It cannot be disputed and is a matter of common
   knowledge that there are a large number of preventive
D measures that can be taken by a person who needs to protect
   himself from the ultra-violet rays. Use of creams, sun-shed and
  other amenities would be beneficial for the individual alleged
  to be intolerable to sun rays. It does not require change of a
   permanent character in the motor vehicle, that too, in utter
E violation of the provisions of the statute. Suffice it to note that
  the reliance placed upon the literature before us is
  misconceived and misdirected. The interpretation of law is not
  founded on a single circumstance, particularly when such
  circumstance is so very individualistic. The Court is not
  expected to go into individual cases while dealing with
F interpretation of law. It is a settled canon of interpretative
  jurisprudence that hardship of few cannot be the basis for
  determining the validity of any statute. The law must be
  interpreted and applied on its plain language. (Ref. Saurabh
  Chaudri & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [AIR 2004 SC 361).
G
       22. In IA 4, a similar request is made. We are not dealing
  with individual cases and individual inconvenience cannot be
  a ground for giving the law a different interpretation.

        23. The petitioner argued with some vehemence that
H
    AVISHEK GOENKA v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.                    1141
            [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

despite a clear direction of this Court, the appeilate authority        A
has utterly failed in enforcing the law. According to him, in
majority of the vehicles in the NCT Delhi and the surrounding
districts of UP, like Ghaziabad, Noida as well as towns of
Haryana surrounding Delhi, law is violated with impunity. All
safety glasses are posted either with Jet black films or light          B
coloured films. He has referred to two instances, one of rape
in Ghaziabad and the other of kidnapping, where the cars
involved in the commission of the crime had black films. He has
also stated that as per the press reports, the vehicles which are
involved in hit and run cases are also vehicles with black films        c
poste~ on the safety glasses.

       24. We are really not emphasizing on the security threat
  to the society at large by use of black films but it -is a clear
. violation of law. In terms of Rule 100, no material including films
  of any VLT can be pasted on the safety glasses of the car and         D
  this law is required to be enforced without demur and delay.
  Thus, we pass the following orders :

       (1)    All the applications filed for clarification and
              modification are dismissed, however, without any          E
              order as to costs.

       (2)    All the Director Generals of Police/Commissioners
              of Police are hereby again directed to ensure
              complete compliance of the judgment of this Court
                                                                        F
              in its true spirit and substance. They shall not permit
              pasting of any material, including films of any VLT,
              on the safety glasses of any vehicle.

       (3)    We reiterate that the police authorities shall not only
              challan the offenders but ensure that the black or        G
              any other films or material pasted on the safety
              glasses are removed forthwith.

       (4)    We make it clear at this stage that we would not
              initiate any proceedings against the Director             H
    1142         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 6 S.C.R.


A                 Generals of Police/Commissioners of Police of the
                  respective States/Union Territories but issue a clear
                  warning that in the event of non-compliance of the
                  judgment of this Court now, and upon it being
                  brought to the notice 'of this Court, the Court shall
B                 be compelled to take appropriate action under the
                  provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
                  without any further notice to the said officers.

                  We do express a pious hope that the high
                  responsible officers of the police cadre like Director
c                 General/Commissioner of Police would not permit
                  such a situation to arise and would now ensure
                  compliance of the judgment without default, demur
                  and delay.

D          (5)    Copies of this judgment be sent to all concerned
                  by the Registry including the -C.hief Secretaries of
                  the respective States forthwith.

    B.B.B.                                             IA's dismissed.