[Aditya]

The Supreme Court of India has passed a judgment stating that any private car that is travelling on a public road can be deemed as a public place. This judgement means that any activity not allowed in a public space will not be allowed in a private car on a public road.

In 1999, the Kerala High Court had passed a judgment stating that a private car on a public road should be considered a private space. The Supreme Court judgement has overruled the High Court judgement.

The Supreme Court Judges ruled that the public may not have access to a private vehicle as a matter of right, but they have the opportunity to approach a private vehicle when it is on a public road.

The judges noted that ‘public conveyance’, which was not included from a notification passed in 1978 that defined public space, was introduced in the 2016 Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act. This amendment did away with the difference between public and private conveyance.

This verdict means that activities such as smoking, which are banned in public places, will not be allowed in a private car on a public road.

Link to Team-BHP News Article


Source

[NaXal]

Our judges need to take course on technology.

Their understanding of the world & how stuff works seems to be 30/40/50 years behind than our present world.

Their logic & actual world's logic seems to so far apart.

India seriously needs a refresher on its IPC & rules. We need to seriously streamline & simplify our laws. Merge & club many of them into one & such.

Let's take a car guy example, using mobile phone in petrol pump is prohibited. Yet, operators can use card swiping machine using same mobile sim card & frequency.

Examples are endless !!

[hrman]

I think this judgement is a bit old, dated July 2019. This also beings to forth the issue of compulsory masks in public places. Many car owners would argue with the cops that it is only their family in the car and they don't need to wear masks. With this definition of public places its clear that anything applicable in a public place is applicable inside a car as well. Not smoking, not spitting, wearing of masks, not drinking without permit etc.

[SmartCat]

Originally Posted by Aditya

The Supreme Court Judges ruled that the public may not have access to a private vehicle as a matter of right, but they have the opportunity to approach a private vehicle when it is on a public road.

Small mercies!

We already know illegal activities (gambling, hanky panky etc) are not allowed in a private vehicle parked on public road. So now the ruling basically extends to rule violations like smoking etc.

[TheHelix0202]

Originally Posted by SmartCat

Small mercies!

We already know illegal activities (gambling, hanky panky etc) are not allowed in a private vehicle parked on public road. So now the ruling basically extends to rule violations like smoking etc.

Does this mean others can technically touch / lean on / do other such stuff on or to your car? But we never ever had the concept of "private space" in India like in the USA anyway...pardon if this is a silly question.

[gkveda]

Good decision. But, Until Government designs the implementation and execution mechanisms along with penalty mechanism, the decision makes no sense. It just creates an opportunity for the cops to earn some pocket money.

In my view, there has to be strict timelines for the government to implement the judgement. (I don't know 'how' part of the answer). Government is also good at creating penalty mechanism for minority people who ignore the rules by imposing fines to certain extent. But nobody today thinks on designing a "HOW TO MAKE MAJORITY PEOPLE FOLLOW THE RULES"

[Nithesh_M]

Originally Posted by TheHelix0202

Does this mean others can technically touch / lean on / do other such stuff on or to your car? But we never ever had the concept of "private space" in India like in the USA anyway...pardon if this is a silly question.

Guess we can step into VVIP cars and reach destinations without adhering to speed limits? Who needs metro now? I'm going to find my nearest VVIP now.

[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:

25. The ommission of public conveyance in the definition of Section 2(17A) brought by the Bihar Excise (Amendment)Act, 2016 also indicates that the difference between public conveyance and private conveyance was done away in the statutory amendment. We, thus, cannot accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that private conveyance will be excluded from the definition of 'public place' as contained in Section 2(17A). In this reference, we may also notice a judgment of learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court cited before us i.e. Manikandan vs. State of Kerala, (1999) 2 KLT 592.

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.

[DicKy]

Subject matter seems to be drinking/smoking in cars on public roads. Fair enough.

But the first thing that crossed my mind reading the heading was

" Cool, so any idiot can lean or use a private car's surface as a public place, or make a clean scratch " :eek

Hate when loafers lean on someone's cars like it's their right or when a classically two-box, three-box designed vehicle have its bonnet or boot used as a resting place for their stuff.

[RedTerrano]

Ok I am confused.
If a private vehicle on a public road is public place, why am I(only) forced to pay road tax? Should that also not come out of public funds i.e. taxes?
Also I don't understand the legal problems with say drinking inside the car. Is it because I am visible? If yes, then if I am drinking inside my house and someone can see me standing on the road, is that illegal as well? If not how is house different than the car?

Note: I am not referring to drunk driving

[aravind.anand]

Originally Posted by TheHelix0202

Does this mean others can technically touch / lean on / do other such stuff on or to your car? But we never ever had the concept of "private space" in India like in the USA anyway...pardon if this is a silly question.

Originally Posted by DicKy

But the first thing that crossed my mind reading the heading was

" Cool, so any idiot can lean or use a private car's surface as a public place, or make a clean scratch " :eek

Get ready to see "Raj loves Priya" on your car when parked at a public place

But honestly, with all due respect, Supreme court needs to calm down a bit. We are still suffering the ban on sun films on our hot and humid country, and now they change this definition of private cars on public roads I fully expect our traffic police team to take this verdict, twist it to their convenience and extort more unfair fines.

[Soorya Ramesh]

Originally Posted by RedTerrano

Ok I am confused.
If a private vehicle on a public road is public place, why am I(only) forced to pay road tax? Should that also not come out of public funds i.e. taxes?
Also I don't understand the legal problems with say drinking inside the car. Is it because I am visible? If yes, then if I am drinking inside my house and someone can see me standing on the road, is that illegal as well? If not how is house different than the car?

Note: I am not referring to drunk driving

Replying to your last sentence,
There's a difference between a Private car in a Public place and a Private car in a Private place, Same applies to a house. Private house in Private place and private house in a public place (Homeless people making their temporary houses). No one is legally allowed to peek into your house to check if you are drinking or not. But the people living in a Private house in a Public place can be questioned. I hope it makes some sense. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[vredesbyrd]

While I understand the intensely burning urge to ban drinking, smoking and diesel cars nationwide (who knows? Video games and good food could be next), at this point I have given up any logical thought or concern for people paying taxes from either the government or the SC. Might as well make our houses public roads because there is so much privacy in India, right?

[ibisbrew]

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.

You make a fine point, but as seen in many other cases and as someone else has mentioned, it just ends up becoming a way for some bad cops to earn more pocket money.

[WorkingGuru]

Good decision which is very much necessary in these times.

When some specific kind of people are confronted about what they're doing within their shaking car late at night parked in a dark alley in the CBD area of the city, they create a ruckus about it not being the polices' business. Then the same people, when wronged, would happen to go to the cops the next day and press charges for **** & complain to their influential media friends who are eager to raise issues that the cops are incompetent at protecting women.

I learnt of this issue 3-4years back, when I had visited the "Law and Order" police over a defaulting tenants bounced water bill cheque. They told me l'd have to go to court to recover the 36k, but then one cop helped settle (provided I stay flexible taking a small 10k hit below the cheque amount). He refused to take any fee. In between all this he had told me of such issues on ground. He was eagerly waiting for retiring after 3 months saying post 2010 he's witnessed too much beyond what any normal human being can bear through, no matter the police training/experience.

Sorry for going a little OT, but I felt it was necessary for context.