Blanket ban of Sun-films – Flaws in the premise of petition

Recently our Honorable Supreme Court issued a blanket ban on any sunfilms on the cars, even if it is within the legal limits permitted. This was based on a PIL filed by one Mr Avishek Goenka, based on the premise that cars with such films are used by the criminals for moving around and illegal activities and also in rape and crime against women. Interestingly, tinted glasses are allowed, but we are not allowed to add sunfilms on normal glass.

When myself and some of the people on social media tried to put across our point on the facebook page of Mr Goenka’s NGO – “ Save Aam Admi”  and point out our concerns and how his premise was wrong, the whole page was removed.

Today, Mr Goenka, has sent posts to many Traffic Police page, trying to answer some of our concerns.

His post and my reply pointing out the flaws in it follows

RESPECTED SIRS,

THIS IS TO DRAW YOUR VALUABLE ATTENTION, TOWARDS THE UNFOUNDED FEARS AMONG SOME OF CAR OWNERS, REGARDING THE VEHICLE BEING HEATED DUE TO ABSENCE OF BLACK FILMS AND OTHER APPREHENSIONS TOO AND HENCE I AM EXTENDING SOME NOTEWORTHY POINTS WHICH CAN EFFECTIVELY COUNTER THE APPREHENSIONS BEING EXPRESSED AGAINST THE MOVE TO BAN BLACK FILMS ON VEHICLE GLASSES AND THE SAME CAN BE SHARED IN THE FACEBOOK PAGES OF THE RESPECTIVE POLICE AUTHORITIES !!

*****BLACK FILM BAN – CLARIFICATIONS (PLEASE SHARE TO EDUCATE OTHERS) !!
1)) BLACK FILMS CONTRIBUTE TO COOLING OF VEHICLES – but firstly only those who use air conditioning, do pull up the glasses & air conditioning provides cooling any ways & further if cooling was an issue, then only silver & white cars would have sold, since they not only absorb the least heat and also increase night visibility of vehicles, hence making them least prone to accidents !! Further black films on glasses have been banned, but coloured glasses complying to (70%) front & (50%) side visibility are allowed.

So what you are saying is that it is ok to have colored glasses, but not colored films even if it confirms to the norm. His petition was based on the premise that it is dangerous to have color films, as police cannot make out what is happening in the car. So, how is it possible for people to make out what is happening in the car with colored glasses and not colored films which confirm to the norms of visibility?

2)) PRIVACY IS HAMPERED – privacy is about private places like homes & hotels, but not public places like roads.

I believe you are misunderstanding privacy here. We are not talking about the privacy factor which the young people in love desire, but the privacy on a whole. So, if the passengers in the car want to have some food, now it is possible to have it inside the car, with no one noticing it unless or until they really stare in. With no sun film, u will have people staring at what you eat. If you are travelling wearing jewellery, earlier it was not obvious, now a look and it is visible

3)) LAP TOPS & STEREO SYSTEMS ARE VISIBLE – both are portable devices & either can be carried at ease, to home or office or hidden beneath the car seats. It will also prevent the thief from opening the car out of curiosity as happens in case of heavy tinted glasses.

So u mean to say, I stop a car for some time to go to a shop or office for half an hour and you want me to carry music system with me? If i forget it, it is ok to lose it? And What is it about preventing the thief from opening car out of curiosity? You want us to help them making sure everything is out in open and save them the trouble of opening a car out of curiosity and not finding anything?

4)) WOMEN ARE UNSAFE WHILE DRIVING AT NIGHT – safety in public places is hampered because of factors which prevent public glare & not because of factors which ensure transparency. Only when there is absence of public glare – mobile phone conversation//drinking//immoral activity//movement of criminals//movement of illegal material//rape//molestation//k
idnapping – is facilitated. Any illegal activity happening in presence of transparency, is an exception hence not universally followed.
Measures are adopted keeping the universal norms in mind & not exceptions. Just because (1) person survived a free fall from a high rise, others too do not make a bee line.

You mention ” Measures are adopted keeping universal norm and not exceptions”. Can you please mention where is it universal norm to that all the activities like rape, molestation, kidnapping happens in cars with sunfilms? Wouldn’t these fall into the category of exception?

5)) CAR DECOR SHOPS WILL FACE DROP IN PROFITS – business will flow from selling coloured glasses instead of black films ..

Again having colored glasses is ok right? And u believe that the criminals are like us, middle class people, to not have money to go for colored glasses and carry on the afore-mentioned activities of yours? This also brings doubt in me whether the petitioner is in lobby with some of these car decor shops or sun film manufacturers to get a cut in their profit.

5)) … tomorrow if shops selling adulterated milk are shut will we protest ?? If these shops would not have mushroomed and sold illegal films in threatening proportions – the need of invoking a ban on black films, would not have arised.

Most idiotic premise i have heard, I am sorry to say this. To take into the same example you are giving, what you are doing is akin to telling that since some shops are selling adulterated milk, it should be made illegal to sell milk. The crack down has to be on these illegal films and not on the car owners having sun films within legal limits.

What we need to do is spread this message around just to show how much stupid the premise is and how Supreme Court is unfortunately wrong in passing this judgement.

Advertisements