A curious thing happened the other day when I was driving. I took a left near the IIT campus and was immediately flagged down by a pair of policemen. I normally do not react well to being stopped by police because of my belief that I never ever violate any law. Well, may be not never ever, but never. May be not even never, but hardly ever violate any major law. A nice copper informed me that my windows were less transparent then rules permitted and the sun-control film would have to come off. My protests that my windows complied with the rules for transparency were to no avail. I was told that the Supreme Court had mandated that there should be no films at all on vehicle windows. With that advice I was let off. A quick check later on the net proved him right. The Court had indeed said that.
The Court had observed that any film, irrespective of how transparent, has to come off, even if it complied with the transparency norms! However, if the manufacturer-supplied windows were tinted that was acceptable. I find this decision very illogical coming as it does from the highest court and arguably the wisest one. My first problem was with the Court ignoring the rules framed under the relevant laws: if the stipulated transparency norms were complied with why is that not acceptable? The court was also taking on an executive role. Admittedly the Government of the day is feckless, and does not govern. Is it therefore acceptable for the Court to take on the job of the government? I think not. If this continues, the courts will soon be telling us what to wear, eat , whom to socialise with etc etc.
There's another angle to it, which I found very strange indeed. The court, it seems to me, was not concerned with the substance, but only with the form. Compliance seems not to be the issue, but whether the windows were supplied by the manufacturer or were modified in the after-market with films. I expected greater wisdom from the highest court.
Then there is the matter of implementing the Court's orders. I promptly had the films removed from my car windows at some cost, only to find that every other car is Chennai still sports pitch black window film. Highly reflective ones too. Displaying a party flag on the bonnet helps evade the attentions of the police. Clearly the police and the government do not intend to implement the Court's orders. Perhaps it is their way of telling the judiciary where to get off.
I have a problem with governments not-enforcing of laws, rules, and regulations. It breeds a healthy disrespect for the laws in the minds of the general public and encourages the belief that laws are meant to be broken, even ignored. That, as you know, can have serious consequences for the future of this country. There is also a progression at work here: people get used to breaking and ignoring simple laws at first, slowly progressing towards more important ones. One can already see this in action all over this city.
I have always maintained that one shouldn't raise one's voice in a dispute unless he is prepared to lift his hands; and one shouldn't lift one's hands unless he prepared to strike with that hand. If you don't want to strike someone, then don't get into a dispute. A government must not make laws and regulations it is not prepared to enforce, for unenforced laws only result in general disrespect for laws and encourage violating progressively more important laws. Libertarians may have political justifications for less government and less regulations, but my stand is for reasons of practicality.
In Chennai you have people habitually driving up the wrong side of the road, driving without lights at night, overtaking from the (dangerous) left side, jumping red lights, not sticking to a lane, weaving through the traffic, and commit at least one infraction every 100 yards. But all of it goes unpunished encouraging the belief that the government is not serious about its own laws. So people build extensions without permits, build without prior planning approvals, grab land belonging to someone else, travel hanging from the outsides of buses and trains instead of inside them, and so on and so forth. The list is endless. This, amongst people who have been known to be sticklers for rules and regulations.
The belief is rife that laws are meant to be broken - which ones depends upon what you can get away with. At this rate, Chennai will soon be returned to the jungle whence it sprang.
The Court had observed that any film, irrespective of how transparent, has to come off, even if it complied with the transparency norms! However, if the manufacturer-supplied windows were tinted that was acceptable. I find this decision very illogical coming as it does from the highest court and arguably the wisest one. My first problem was with the Court ignoring the rules framed under the relevant laws: if the stipulated transparency norms were complied with why is that not acceptable? The court was also taking on an executive role. Admittedly the Government of the day is feckless, and does not govern. Is it therefore acceptable for the Court to take on the job of the government? I think not. If this continues, the courts will soon be telling us what to wear, eat , whom to socialise with etc etc.
There's another angle to it, which I found very strange indeed. The court, it seems to me, was not concerned with the substance, but only with the form. Compliance seems not to be the issue, but whether the windows were supplied by the manufacturer or were modified in the after-market with films. I expected greater wisdom from the highest court.
Then there is the matter of implementing the Court's orders. I promptly had the films removed from my car windows at some cost, only to find that every other car is Chennai still sports pitch black window film. Highly reflective ones too. Displaying a party flag on the bonnet helps evade the attentions of the police. Clearly the police and the government do not intend to implement the Court's orders. Perhaps it is their way of telling the judiciary where to get off.
I have a problem with governments not-enforcing of laws, rules, and regulations. It breeds a healthy disrespect for the laws in the minds of the general public and encourages the belief that laws are meant to be broken, even ignored. That, as you know, can have serious consequences for the future of this country. There is also a progression at work here: people get used to breaking and ignoring simple laws at first, slowly progressing towards more important ones. One can already see this in action all over this city.
I have always maintained that one shouldn't raise one's voice in a dispute unless he is prepared to lift his hands; and one shouldn't lift one's hands unless he prepared to strike with that hand. If you don't want to strike someone, then don't get into a dispute. A government must not make laws and regulations it is not prepared to enforce, for unenforced laws only result in general disrespect for laws and encourage violating progressively more important laws. Libertarians may have political justifications for less government and less regulations, but my stand is for reasons of practicality.
In Chennai you have people habitually driving up the wrong side of the road, driving without lights at night, overtaking from the (dangerous) left side, jumping red lights, not sticking to a lane, weaving through the traffic, and commit at least one infraction every 100 yards. But all of it goes unpunished encouraging the belief that the government is not serious about its own laws. So people build extensions without permits, build without prior planning approvals, grab land belonging to someone else, travel hanging from the outsides of buses and trains instead of inside them, and so on and so forth. The list is endless. This, amongst people who have been known to be sticklers for rules and regulations.
The belief is rife that laws are meant to be broken - which ones depends upon what you can get away with. At this rate, Chennai will soon be returned to the jungle whence it sprang.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.