Quote:
Originally Posted by S2!!! My point is if the rule is passed by the SC, I think we all should respect it rather than making a hue and fuss about it, and help the law and order to curtail crime in our city. |
Sounds very pointless infact. This is so contrary to the fundamentals of Democracy as already mentioned a number of times. Firstly, I do not think this is a "Rule". According to our Constitution, only the Parliamentary Government could pass/legislate Acts and subsequently "Rules" would be framed by the relevant authority(Executives) for compliance with the Act and would always be governed by the Act. The Judiciary is entrusted with the judicial scrutiny of every such legislation (Acts/Rules) so passed so as to ascertain whether they adhere to the principles laid down in our Constitution apart from acting as an interpreter of the Constitution in case of disputes.
In a normal course of action, the Hon'ble Apex Court would have directed the Govt. and the relevant authorities to ratify the Rules as per provided guidelines and ensure proper implementation of the Rule. In this case, the SC has gone ahead an superseded a Rule framed under a constitutionally passed Act directly. While I'm not sure of the empowerment/restrictions of the Judiciary in doing this, it seems to the layman that the natural course of action was by-passed for the sake of maybe an "early disposal" of the petition without much botheration to the executives and legislators. So, for the ones affected by the Judgement, it definitely makes sense to make a "hue and fuss", otherwise it would dangerously resemble Dictatorship.
Moreover, why the common-man is irked by the instant judgement is very simple to understand :
1. We are unaware of what facts and details were taken into account by the Hon'ble SC ? What material was produced before the Hon'ble Bench, more importantly what was not ? Was their an expert panel appointed? Who were the member of such panel? What were their findings? The recording by the Hon'ble Court that due to the lack of Lux-o-meters or whatever the settled Rule could not be enforced adds fuel to fire, indicates that there were real dearth of cogent reasons for enforcement of the blanket ban. A convincing ground/reasoning is badly missing from the text of the Judgement doing circulation. There were seemingly nothing technical being discussed.
2. It is still unclear as to how crime can be curbed by doing away with a 50 / 70% VLT sun-film. We are left guessing whether a simple sample of 50/70% VLT film had been produced before the bench the outcome would have been different. A window pane tinted with a 50% VLT Film could have been easily produced before the Bench and if sanity prevailed the outcome would have been very conducive.
3. We are but left to understand that we are being penalized for the sake of subsiding the incompetency of the law-enforcement/administration. Well, we are not new to subsidies, but they generally do not hurt directly.
4. We are being robbed of an accessory which has many virtues. Shading, cooling, protecting from UV, preventing shattering or glass and consequent injuries, fuel savings,glare reduction, deterring theft(though theft is seemingly not a cognizable crime in India anymore). As the climate changes for the worse, sunfilms are poised to becoming mandatory fitments. Moreover, we have dished out 10-50 times more money on legal sun-films over the illegal Rs.500 "Black Films" and we are getting robbed for no fault of ours.
Yes, we are all law abiding citizens and would comply in this case as well. However, that does not take away our right to protest against and/or critically discuss bad Rules/Judgements or Acts committed by the guardians of law in our own limited/ non-harmful manner.