1. The nation was hurt, outraged and shell shocked. Country wide anguish, grief, sorrow, engulfed over brutal, heinous and horrific gang rape of 23 year old Physiotherapy student in a moving bus having tinted glass in South Delhi on 16.12.2012, on Sunday at 9.30 p.m.

2. Despite airlifting her to Singapore for treatment and all efforts by the Government to save her life was in vain, as she breathed her last on 30th December 2012. A precious life was lost. The whole nation cried. Her death in such tragic circumstances has angered the civil society, thereby inviting to make a deep introspection into the functioning of law enforcement agencies at work.

3. In the aftermath of the aforesaid crime, New Delhi witnessed angry protests, more particularly by the student community. The protests also spilled over to the rest of the nation which is shocked at the heinousness of the Crime.

(1) Which is responsible for this heinous, brutal, horrendous and shocking crime?

(2) Which is responsible for the shock, pain, injuries, bleeding, writhing, moaning, suffering and agony suffered by the poor girl?

(3) Which is responsible for sad, untimely and tragic death of the young girl?

The only answer to the above questions is non-implementation of a Supreme Court order by the law enforcing agencies.

4. A search for solace in the circumstances, has driven the judicial conscience of this Court to tread through the innumerable guidelines expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again. One among the facts, that had facilitated the perpetrators of the crime was the unchecked usage of the prohibited black films in the glass windows of the bus in which the victim was raped.

5. On 27th April 2012, the Apex Court in Avishek Goenka v. Union of India and another reported in (2012) 5 SCC 321 prohibited 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 writ petition was filed by a public spirited person, who contended that there is an alarming rise in heinous crimes like kidnapping, rape and dacoities and such increase is due to various factors, including the use of black films at windows, windshields of motor vehicles. The case of the petitioner therein has been stated in paragraphs 3,5 and 7 of the aforesaid judgment and they are as follows:

"3. 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.

5. 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 the use of black-filmed glasses. The use of black films also prevents the traffic police from seeing the activity in the car and communicating with the driver of the vehicle.

6..............

7. The Court can take a judicial notice of the fact that even as per the reports, maximum crimes are committed in such vehicles and there has been a definite rise in the commission of heinous crimes, posing a threat to the security of individuals and the State, both."

(Emphasis supplied)

Considering the scope of Rule 100 of Central Motor Vehicles Rule 1989, which