LCI Learning
New LIVE Course: Toxicology and Law. Batch begins 21st July. Register Now!

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More


Untitled 1

The Supreme Court in .Avishek Goenka Vs Union of India banned all kinds of black films on car windows. The apex court has stirred up the mischief rule 'Ejusdem Generis'. By construing the doctrine, the Supreme Court observed that the expression maintained has to be construed ejusdem generis to manufacture, and banned use of all kinds of films on car windows. The judgment does not delve into core aspect like for what purpose sun control films even with permissible VLT should not be used . Now let us scan rule 100(2) of Motor vehicles act - The glass of the windscreen and rear window of every motor vehicle shall be such and shall be maintained in such a condition that the visual transmission of light is not less than 70%. The glasses used for side windows are such and shall be maintained in such condition that the visual transmission of light is not less than 50%, and shall conform to Indian Standards. This raises an argument -Did the Supreme Court "err" in interpreting that the law does not permit use of sun films on vehicles windscreens and only vehicle manufacturers can provide tinted glass with users having no right to alter the level of tint by affixing sun control films? Before determining the issue of the applicability of the ejusdem generis rule to the facts of this particular case, we need to know what is meant by ejusdem generis rule. On analyzing ejusdem generis rule and the rule (often known as the Mischief rule in Heydon's case) under which the court has to consider the law before the enactment of the statute, the defect or mischief in the law and the remedy adopted to cure that defect or mischief.

The Latin expression "ejusdem generis" which means "of the same kind or nature" is a principle of construction, meaning thereby when general words in a statutory text are flanked by restricted words, the meaning of the general words are taken to be restricted by implication with the meaning of restricted words. In uncomplicated expression -when particular words are followed by general words, the general words are construed as limited to things of the same kind as specified in the particular words(i.e. general words not to be interpreted widely and general words should highlight the object manifested in the particular words). Thus, in order to strike a balance between general and specific words, this maxim is used. e.g. horse, cow, pig, goat, sheep and other animals would in isolation imply other four legged stock animals as coming within the section but not birds or fish. The doctrine of ejusdem generis, however, is only a rule of construction to be applied as an aid to ascertain the legislative intent. It should be emphasized that whether the statute is remedial or penal has no effect upon the applicability of the doctrine.

The rule of ejusdem generis applies in the following circumstances:

The statute contains an enumeration of specific words;


1) The subjects of enumeration constitute a class or category;

2) That class or category is not exhausted by the enumeration;

3) The general terms follow the enumeration; and

4)There is no indication of a different legislative intent.

Can the the word maintenance appearing in the sub-clause (2) could be read ejusdem generis with the words manufacture?

Ejusdem generis is a critical rule for interpreting technological statutes like Motor vehicles act because technology advances very rapidly and the legislature cannot anticipate those advances Craies on ,Statute Law summarises the principle as follows:-

LCI Learning

"The ejusdem generis rule is one to be applied with caution and not pushed too far. To invoke the application of the ejusdem generis rule there must be a distinct genus or category. The specific words must apply not to different objects of a widely differing character In interpreting the expression maintenance the principle of ejusdem generis cannot be applied, because, for the application of that rule, there must be distinct genus or category . It does not speak of a class, category or genus followed by general words. The rule of ejusdem generis has, therefore, no application.

The principle of ejusdem generis does not apply here because the statute's plain meaning is apparent-Manufacturer- means a person who is a designer, formulator, constructor, rebuilder, fabricator, producer, compounder, processor, or assembler of any product or any component part thereof and who places the product or any part thereof in the stream of production rather maintenance takes place outside the premises of the manufacturer of the vehicle . Maintenance is post manufacturing activity. The doctrine of ejusdem generis only applies where an enumeration of specific things is followed by some more general word. When a statute contains this pattern, then the general words must be construed to refer to things of the same kind or species as those specifically enumerated. The word manufacture is not enumerated in the Act The rule of further states that, when general words follow a designation of particular classes or things, the particular designations restrict the meaning of the general terms. As such the statutory interpretation rule of ejusdem generis precludes manufacturers from falling within the statutory definition of maintenance.

Therefore the word maintained can be interpreted that - Alteration of VLT (visual transmission light) can be done by maintaining with requisite VLT percentage by use of sun control films. Since maintenance is subsequent to its manufacturing we can change or modify the glass windows within permissible limits. Hence, the rule gives absolute right to the owner of the vehicle to choose or alter percentage of VLT within the permitted range or limit and not to the manufacturer. Maintenance of vehicle is vested with the owner/purchaser of the vehicle and not manufacturer. The word maintained in the context has a self evident meaning and thus form a complete an independent word. The word maintained is not defined in the Motor vehicles rules therefore it must be given its plain, ordinary, and generally accepted meaning, unless the policy indicates the term was used in a technical or different sense.

The sruti principle of mimansa rules of interpretation spells out if a word is explicit in sense , no attempt should be made to strain or twist its meaning. They cannot be construed contrary to their meaning .When once the intention is plain it is not the province of the court to scan its wisdom or its policy. When one construction would secure convenience and economy and another would impose labour and fruitless trouble ,the former should be followed. Sun control films are technologically superior and hence cheaper than conventional tinted glasses. On Safety: There's nothing more dangerous than flying shards of glass, which often cause the most damage during, riots, collisions etc. Sun control films not only resist breakage, they also hold the pieces together whenever glass panes break, thereby minimizing damage to life and property. The total ban of sun control films has caused inconvenience and hardship to vehicle users. In a conservative society like India one can imagine the plight of nursing mothers who will be exposed to every prying eye including strangers.

Moreover, our beloved sisters and daughters will also be victims of harassment from evil-minded mischievous people. Already there are innumerable reports of such harassment happening. In a more dangerous situation women driving alone or only women occupants will be targeted by eve teasers. Children of the rich and well-to-do will be easy prey for unscrupulous elements Cases of thefts of valuables like laptops, car stereos, wallets, mobiles etc., will be a regular occurrence. Society feels hard to get over this squeamishness. The apex court observed in Pathumma vs state of kerala (A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 771) -Courts is to interpret the provisions so as to show a complete consciousness and deep awareness of the growing requirements of the society, the increasing needs of the nation, the burning problems of the day and the complex issues facing the people. The judicial approach should be dynamic rather than static, pragmatic rather than pedantic and elastic rather than rigid. It must take into consideration the changing trends of economic thought, the temper of the times and the living aspirations and feelings of the people. A word like a man is very often known by the company it keeps and accordingly a word is very often to be understood in the context and collocation it is used.

The rule of ejusdem generis calls for very careful application in case where the context of the enactment and the object and mischief of the enactment do not require any restricted meaning, it is the duty of the court to give the words their plain and ordinary meaning (AIR 1957 SC 521).This has been ingeminated in RAGHUNATH RAI BAREJA AND ANOTHER vs PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND OTHERS [(2007) 2 SCC 230.It say-so- Where the words of a statute are absolutely clear and unambiguous, recourse cannot be had to the principles of interpretation other than the literal rule - Statute should be as it is, without distorting or twisting its language.

The courts are finishers, refiners and polishers of legislation which comes to them in a state requiring varying degrees of further processing. principle of statutory interpretation has or should have effect only when the legislation under consideration is ambiguous Lord Scarman in Quazi v. Quazi [1979] 3 All ER 897 (HL) at page 916 described the Ejusdem generis rule as 'useful servant but a bad master'. Applying these as best I can conclude in my opinion, it is wrong to use the rule of ejusdem generis construction as a piece of abstract or mechanical reasoning. It is a guide not a rule and can be looked primarily in the construction of a statute only in a limited area. The apex court ought to have held that alteration of VLT (visual transmission light ) can be done by maintaining with requisite VLT percentage by use of sun control films.

By: K.SURESH BABU

ADVOCATE, NEW DOOR NO 9,

RAJA COLONY, SECOND MAIN ROAD,

LAWSONS- COLLECTORS OFFICE ROAD,

CANTONMENT,TRICHY-620001

EMAIL:lawyersureshbabu@gmail.com


"Loved reading this piece by sureshbabu?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"






Tags :


Category Others, Other Articles by - sureshbabu 



Comments

10 years ago Santhosh Kumar

HI is there any change to the ban? Since i could not find any article after 2013 in internet.


12 years ago Satya Mani Tiwari

Mr. Suresh, I think it was very good of you to point out certain points which should have been taken into consideration before just putting a BAN on sunfilms by the APEX court. Why dont you just go ahaed & put up a review petition . If it come sin your favour you will be an instant HIT.


13 years ago yashwanth jain

Very good article sir


13 years ago Saurabh..V

@Author There are two sides to this interpretation. The SC was held between two pulling reasons while interpreting this law. On one side it was rising crimes and other side, freedom of an individual. It seems rising crimes weight more on the scale of law. I strongly feel that only lagging implementation we face harassment. Police find only common man faulting the law but ALL politicians, high post officers and powerful men gets discretionary benefits. Powerful men still enjoy jet black films on their cars while common has done away with the films way back.


13 years ago V. VASUDEVAN

Cheers and Thanks for taking great pains in clarifying this. It is like light at the end of the tunnel. I had an excellent sun control film which I had to remove merciless and to suffer of scorching heat while driving. Vasudevan


13 years ago Advocate.S.A.Siddiq

நல்ல ஆய்வு வாழ்த்துக்கள்


13 years ago Advocate.S.A.Siddiq

நல்ல ஆய்வு வாழ்த்துக்கள்


13 years ago PJANARDHANA REDDY

Supreme Court of India Supreme Court of India Avishek Goenka vs Union Of India & Anr. on 27 April, 2012 Bench: S.H. Kapadia, A.K. Patnaik, Swatanter Kumar REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 265 OF 2011 Avishek Goenka a€| Petitioner Versus Union of India & Anr. a€| Respondents J U D G M E N T Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. Alarming rise in heinous crimes like kidnapping, sexual assault on women and dacoity have impinged upon the right to life and the right to live in a safe environment which are within the contours of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. One of the contributory factors to such increase is use of black films on windows/windshields of four-wheeled vehicles. The petitioner, as a public spirited person, has invoked the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution in the present public interest litigation, praying for certain directions to stop this menace. According to the petitioner, this Court should issue a writ or direction requiring use of such safety glasses on the windows/windshields in vehicles having 100 per cent Visual Light Transmission (for short a€.VLTa€.) only and, to that extent, the petitioner challenges the correctness of Rule 100 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short a€.the Rulesa€.). He also prays for prohibition on use of black films on the glasses of the vehicles, proper implementation of law in that behalf and finally, for taking stringent actions against the offenders, using vehicles with black filmed glasses. He also prays that a larger police force should be deputed to monitor such offences. 2. The use of black films upon the vehicles gives immunity to the violators in committing a crime and is used as a tool of criminality, considerably increasing criminal activities. At times, heinous crimes like dacoity, rape, murder and even terrorist acts are committed in or with the aid of vehicles having black films pasted on the side windows and on the screens of the vehicles. It is stated that because of non- observance of the norms, regulations and guidelines relating to the specifications for the front and rear windscreens and the side windows of the vehicles, the offenders can move undetected in such vehicles and commit crimes without hesitation. 3. The word a€.tinteda€. means shade or hue as per the dictionary. The rear and front and side glasses of vehicles are provided with such shade or tint, and therefore, they are widely referred to as a€.tinted glassesa€., which is different from a€.black filmsa€.. The glasses of the vehicles having a coating of black films cannot be termed as a€.tinted glassesa€. because they are not manufactured as such. 4. Besides aiding in commission of crimes, black films on the vehicles are also at times positively correlated with motor accidents on the roads. It is for the reason that the comparative visibility to that through normal/tinted glasses which are manufactured as such is much lesser and the persons driving at high speed, especially on highways, meet with accidents because of use of black filmed glasses. Avishek Goenka vs Union Of India & Anr. on 27 April, 2012 Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/76732680/ 1




You are not logged in . Please login to post comments.

Click here to Login / Register