[dark.knight]

Originally Posted by Soorya Ramesh

I hope it makes some sense. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Nope, makes no sense at all, note that I don't drink liquor and have no intention to start now.

The courts have always breached into citizen rights since time immemorial, the way I see it, mankind seems to make such rules out of jealousy and nothing else, they rather make war publicly than make love and it seems to them that, that is logical. Also, all these things, including drinking, smoking and conjugal actions take place every single day, in broad daylight, public areas, police just collect bribes and let them go (Bangalore police is just a note counting organization).

If my so called private property in public area is trespassed (all properties technically lie in public area, doesn't mean that people can stand just outside of legal limits and peek) rest assured they wont leave in one piece, one police officer made the mistake of opening the car door during lockdown as I was merely checking the phone before leaving home after shopping groceries, I got out and saw eye to eye with him (I was a bit taller though and a whole lot stronger) and told him if he lays his grubby hands on the car again I'm willing to go to any station and court required.

India has a serious problem with privacy and judgemental nature, the courts and their poorer brethren the police only exacerbate it.

[Nalin1]

Whether the judgement makes sense or not, try winning a debate with cops on this one.

They are still understanding the difference between an original document, a photocopy and a soft copy. Now we have these kind of confusing, controversial and complicated judgements.

[Lalvaz]

Originally Posted by setuniket

Classic click bait.

Before jumping into any conclusion, I would recommend all members to see through the news report and read the Judgment. Judgment unlike laws are not cast in stone.

Rather, as per Supreme Court, judgments are not supposed to be read as laws framed by the parliament and should be seen on the facts of each case.

A perusal of the Judgment reveals that the issue was relating to prosecution of persons occupying a private car who were found to be drunk when they entered State of Bihar(which as we know is a dry state) and has prohibition in place. The state charged them for violation of the 2016 amendment of the Bihar Excise act, the court held that a person who consumes alochol and enters state of Bihar cannot be prosecuted under the Bihar Excise law for being is found drunk or in a state of drunkenness at any place i.e. Section 37(b) of the amended Bihar Excise law.

To quote from the Judgment:



read judgment here

PS: The report is actually completely wrong, the Supreme Court did not overrule Kerala High Court Judgement because the question of overruling did not survive when the Kerala Government amended the law.

Your post makes so much sense. I agree that the title of this thread is absolutely misleading, and I'm surprised that its not been changed to reflect the reality.

Thank you for putting the point across that a judgement is not a law. Very few laypersons get that.

[dksv]

Last week we were travelling back home on the Airport road in Bangalore (below the flyover). When we neared one of the several traffic signals, out of nowhere about 7-8 men in fake military uniforms appeared and knocked on the window and asked us to pull over. I was sitting in the passenger seat and lowered the window to talk. Apparently they were the “mask police” who catch people not wearing masks and collect fines. I asked the others in the car to not open their windows. I argued that all passengers are from the same family and live together in the same house; and we have our windows rolled up and will get off only when we reach home. What purpose does wearing masks inside the car during the journey serve? One guy mentioned “government regulations”. I was going to ask him/them to show their IDs but another guy started that my car is “public space” when it is on road. Then, I had enough - I gave him a piece of my mind and they retracted. We left without paying a penny.

I’m sure the “public place” narrative will be abused for money in the coming days.

[SmartCat]

Originally Posted by dksv

Last week we were travelling back home on the Airport road in Bangalore (below the flyover). When we neared one of the several traffic signals, out of nowhere about 7-8 men in fake military uniforms appeared and knocked on the window and asked us to pull over.

By the way, those military uniforms are NOT fake. These guys (called Marshals) are ex-servicemen hired by BBMP.



But aren't there any restrictions on wearing military uniform after quitting service?

[Mr.U]

But aren't there any restrictions on wearing military uniform after quitting service?

Those are not military uniforms.

[dksv]

Originally Posted by SmartCat

By the way, those military uniforms are NOT fake. These guys (called Marshals) are ex-servicemen hired by BBMP.

Thanks for sharing this information. I stand corrected. I have immense respect to real servicemen. The ones in the picture you posted look legit. But the ones who stopped my car were all young lads in similar uniforms. Interacting with them somehow did not feel like they’ve been in our armed forces at some point.

[RedTerrano]

Originally Posted by Lalvaz

Thank you for putting the point across that a judgement is not a law. Very few laypersons get that.

Wasn't it a SC judgement which led to cops all over the country enforce the no sun film rule? Numerous incidents where in their zeal, the cops actually ripped off the films themselves.
Few other such incidents come to mind.
Dahi Handi
Jallikattu

Moral of the story: When the authorities say frog, we muggles better jump.

[Vasanth]

Okay, new rules by Supreme Court , which doesn’t make any sense (like always)
First we were banned from using mobile phones while driving which made sense. Then Automobile industries integrated Bluetooth into car’s infotainment system so drivers can pick up important calls hands free and again which got banned. Just WHY?
End of the day action is taken against only on Cars.
Let me go slight off topic:
I’ve seen Ambulance drivers misusing the ambulance van in the name of ‘fake sick’ patients.
Whenever there is a slow moving truck ahead and few vehicles behind, ambulances zoom past with the siren.
And eventually I happen to meet the same ambulance much ahead chilling and cruising down the highway without siren and worries. And if we don’t give way to Ambulances we will be fined heavily.
This boils my blood. And serious action has to be taken against them.
So, people who live in apartments, what are their boundaries for being in public or private ?
Do we have to start wearing masks inside our own car?

[Lalvaz]

Originally Posted by RedTerrano

Wasn't it a SC judgement which led to cops all over the country enforce the no sun film rule? Numerous incidents where in their zeal, the cops actually ripped off the films themselves.
Few other such incidents come to mind.
Dahi Handi
Jallikattu

Moral of the story: When the authorities say frog, we muggles better jump.

I see your viewpoint, however the Supreme Court judgement on those cases was slightly different. See the one regarding the sun film ban for instance. It was in response to a PIL seeking the ban on sun films due to the increasing number of crimes in cars with sun films. If an aggrieved party goes to the SC, the SC has to consider the case on merits and pass some judgement. In the sun film case, since the PIL dealt with crimes due to sun films, the ban was passed and orders given to the police to enforce the ban. See details below:

The Supreme Court has ordered a complete ban on use of tinted plastic films irrespective of the degree of visibility on windscreens and other glass panels of vehicles throughout the country.

Giving time to vehicle owners to bring their vehicles back in the shape it was provided by the manufacturer, a bench presided over by Chief Justice S.H. Kapadia directed police officers to start taking action from May 4.

The bench said police officers should not only issue challans but also remove the black films from the offending vehicles.

"No black film or any material can be pasted on the windscreens or side glasses of a vehicle," the bench said, imposing a complete ban on plastic films in unambiguous terms.

On the Central Motor Vehicle Rules mandating a minimum visibility of 70 per cent for windscreens and 50 per cent for side windows, the court said the parameters were for manufactures but once the vehicles came into the hands of buyers the specifications could not be changed. "None can be permitted to create his own device to bring down the percentage of the VLT (Visual Light Transmission) thereafter,'' the court said.

Seeking strict compliance, the court said the use of black films had proved to be criminal's paradise and a social evil. Vehicles with tinted glasses helped criminals escape after committing heinous crimes such as sexual assault against women, robberies, kidnapping etc.

"The Rules are mandatory and nobody has the authority in law to mould these rules for the purposes of convenience or luxury and certainly not for crime,'' the court said.

On certain VIPs/VVIPs using tinted glasses in their vehicles, the court said even that practice was not supported by law. The government could, however, consider granting them exemption in accordance with law.

The order came on a PIL by Avishek Goenka who had submitted that tinted glasses not only helped criminals but was also responsible for a large number of accidents. He had pointed out that several countries, including Pakistan, had banned black films.

[Ford_Prefect]

Originally Posted by setuniket

Classic click bait.

Before jumping into any conclusion, I would recommend all members to see through the news report and read the Judgment. Judgment unlike laws are not cast in stone.

Rather, as per Supreme Court, judgments are not supposed to be read as laws framed by the parliament and should be seen on the facts of each case.

A perusal of the Judgment reveals that the issue was relating to prosecution of persons occupying a private car who were found to be drunk when they entered State of Bihar(which as we know is a dry state) and has prohibition in place. The state charged them for violation of the 2016 amendment of the Bihar Excise act, the court held that a person who consumes alochol and enters state of Bihar cannot be prosecuted under the Bihar Excise law for being is found drunk or in a state of drunkenness at any place i.e. Section 37(b) of the amended Bihar Excise law.

To quote from the Judgment:



read judgment here

PS: The report is actually completely wrong, the Supreme Court did not overrule Kerala High Court Judgement because the question of overruling did not survive when the Kerala Government amended the law.

Thank you for including a link to the ruling. You are right, the OP states that the Kerala High Court judgement was over-ruled but it wasn't. Section 15c of the Kerala law was amended to include private vehicles invalidating the Kerala high court judge's ruling.

I am not a lawyer but does the Bihar government have the right to enter any person's domicile, per section 37 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act 2016, and check if any one is drunk? This sounds like a ridiculous over-reach of government.

Also, the penalty for section 37 (c) and (d) states

(c) and (d), with a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and with fine, which shall not be less than one lakh rupees which may extend to ten lakh rupees.

Really! I can be imprisoned for life if I cause a nuisance in my own premise per this law. Which includes playing loud music in my car or house. Does that even sound reasonable? Our politicians and babus seem to be out of touch with common people. How do they get away with making such laws?