By Emidao Shylla
A very controversial incident happened in August 2019, after the incumbent, MLA of Rambrai-Jyrngam constituency, dragged a police officer to the Assembly Privileges Committee for having been asked to remove the tinted glass from his private vehicle. Wasn’t the police official doing his duty?
Democracy, as we are told is meant for the people, by the people, and of the people. In the present context, it looks like the real meaning of democracy has practically zero worth. When we talk of democracy, the first thing that comes to mind is “The Government,” followed by the people who run it. We all talk about laws that are equal for all. This is just a hypothetical idea and not the slightest bit pragmatic, yet everybody actually reiterates that laws are the same for all. In 2012, the Supreme Court banned the use of tinted glasses in vehicles, restricting vision beyond the permissible limit as fixed under the Motor Vehicles Act.
The Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, say that the windshield and rear windows of vehicles should have a visual light transmission of 70 percent, and for side windows it should be at least 50 percent. In the recent news, the Deputy Chief Minister mentioned to the media that tinted glass is required for the security of the VIPs. As ordinary citizens, we can’t help thinking about what he implied by VIPs. Who are these “VIPs?” It would be extremely useful if he could expand the meaning and whether the Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) and Members of the District Councils (MDCs) are listed under the list of VIPs. If so, we request his esteemed office to issue a notification on the same, so that the general public will not blabber on this issue over and over again for years.
It may be mentioned that Prestone Tynsong had said the use of tinted glasses by politicians and VIPs is not an infringement of the Supreme Court Order since it guarantees their safety. Which order of the Supreme Court indicated the above as told by the Dy. CM? Is the safety of politician(s) superior to that of the general public? Does it mean that the lives of ordinary people have no value? Why would the lives of the politicians be at risk? The simple reason is that they are not doing the job they are supposed to, in terms of performance, accessibility, promises etc., And what makes them think their lives are in danger unless they are involved in something that endangers their lives?
How aware is the Dy. CM of the VIP culture? The ones who are no longer eligible are still enjoying the cake, e.g., former MLAs and MDCs, or retired government officials. Post retirement and losing an election, they become ordinary citizens once again. Why are they still allowed to ply the roads in their private vehicles with tinted glasses? Can Tynsong give a convincing reply to this? He also added that most politicians travel at night, so he believes that having dim glasses in the vehicle is ideal. Who doesn’t travel at night? Whose lives are never at stake? His statements make us wonder why the lives of these public servants are important than the public. But what about women and men that drive alone at night from work after a tiring day to head back home? How certain is he of their safety? Has he ever considered this? We are sure that he has not, and neither will he, as long as he and his flock get to travel safely.
Prestone has been thinking too much about the state’s VIPs, but is he aware that, as per a Supreme Court order, tinted glasses are only permitted on the vehicles of people in the Z and Z plus categories? Just to let him know, the people who get Z+ security are Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, Priyanka Gandhi, Mukesh Ambani, Amit Shah, Salman Khan, Yogi Adityanath, and various others. As of late, we learnt that Billionaire Gautam Adani is the new entrant to the ‘Z’ category VIP security club.So under which category do our CM, Ministers, and MLAs/MDCs fall? If they cannot avail themselves of the above category of security, they should do away with the tinted glasses from their official and private vehicles as soon as possible. In some cases, being placed in a category is viewed as a status symbol by politicians, and many use their clout to secure a Z+ security detail. This is nothing but a waste of taxpayers’ money.
To recall a decade old news report, on the second day of the drive against tinted glasses continuing across the state on May 16, 2012, it was, however, noticed that government vehicles were left untouched by the traffic police. Eleven years ago, they had already given the public a sign that those in the government were and will always remain above the law. The former, Meghalaya DGP N. Ramachandran, made it clear that government vehicles also fall under the purview of the Supreme Court ban. That was merely a vague comment to defend the government and the ones in power. It was also learnt that many senior government officials do not endorse this decision. A senior government official even threatened that if anybody tried to remove the tinted glasses from his vehicle, he would directly approach the court. Hence it is crystal clear that this order from the apex court would fail miserably and the result is seen playing itself out daily.
The former Home Minister of Meghalaya, Roshan Warjri, in the budget session of the 8th house of the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly in 2013, informed that as many as 47 VIPs and VVIPs are allowed to use tinted glass in their vehicles. She never mentioned which category these VIPs/VVIPs were in. By 2022, the number must have increased by 600% substantially.
A very controversial incident happened in August 2019, after the incumbent, MLA of Rambrai-Jyrngam constituency, dragged a police officer to the Assembly Privileges Committee for having been asked to remove the tinted glass from his private vehicle. Wasn’t the police official doing his duty? When such officials are performing their duty, the ones in power are the ones obstructing them. This is a sad reality that a legislator who should be safeguarding the law is actually breaking it blatantly. Former SP (Traffic) BD Marak said, “If we do not follow the rules, it will be contempt of court.” Did he mean ‘we,’ as ordinary citizens? Or did he mean everyone, including politicians and those in power?
Security cover for individuals, including MPs, is provided only on the basis of individual threat perception. State governments have their own criteria for providing security to MPs. The list of MPs provided security under various categories is not maintained centrally, replied the former Minister of State in the Ministry of Home Affairs, Haribhai Parthibhai Chaudhary, when asked by Narayan Lal Panchariya in the Rajya Sabha in the winter session of 2015. The apex court order mentions that certain VIPs/VVIPs using black films on their vehicles for security reasons is not supported by law, as no notification by any competent authority has been brought to its notice giving exemption to such vehicles from the operation of Rule 100 or any of its provisions.
The Supreme Court had stated that it would be up to the State Committees to examine such cases for exemption in accordance with the law and after due consideration. These certificates should be provided only in relation to official cars of VIPs or VVIPs, depending upon the category of security that such persons have been awarded by the competent authority. In fact, most public figures, including the CM, his ministers, MLAs, DCs, SPs, etc., and the police officials themselves, do not adhere to the requirements and are seen to have fixed almost 0% transparency (total dark) tinted glasses in their vehicles (both public and private).
Whom should we hold accountable for the failure of the Supreme Court order? Shouldn’t the concerned authorities discipline themselves? They are supposed to be the keepers of the law but are themselves, lawbreakers. It is widely understood that laws are made to be implemented. The question is, have they been implemented strictly? If not, why not? It seems that there is no specific law to book those that are flouting the law.
In a different context, Under the Motor Vehicle (Driving) Regulations, 2017, parking a vehicle on a footpath, cycle track, and pedestrian crossing is illegal. However, it is often seen that the ones who should be the attendants of the law are themselves crooks, thus jeopardising the adage, “Practice what you preach”. A fresh breach by an army vehicle last week that was parked on a footpath in front of a gate of private property in the Laitumkhrah area is a clear demonstration that law and order has and never will be applicable to the ones who are supposed to set examples for many. If such a violation was committed by a lay person a hefty fine and clamp on the parked vehicle would have followed.
So who is flouting the law? The general public or the ones in power? Who will decide this if not the courts of justice?