[Shanksta]

Really bold move by the Assam government. Hope all the other states learn from this and force manufacturers to provide cars that are safer.

I have a doubt though - They have banned the cars that were tested and scored poorly but what about about the ones that come in the middle and are not(not necessarily) safe, like the Omni, Wagon-R/Stingray, Eeco, Brio, Santro, Eon, etc.,

[sudev]

One fact all posters should understand it is not something done by Assam government but by judicial activism of the High Court.

[pranjal1984]

Nearly 140 models of M1 category vehicles are affected by the judgement. I called up Bimal Guwahati today and amusingly they said they are still accepting bookings for M1 category vehicles. However they have clearly informed the customers that delivery will take time. They are also optimistic that stay order will be obtained in August 27 hearing of the case in Guwahati. Such is the clout of SIAM in our country.

[amitoj]

Wow this is a tough call. I don't doubt that safer cars is the need of the hour. The Assam High Court has acknowledged this and decided to take action. I am sure the Honorable Judge(s) know what the HC can and can not do. What needs to be seen is whether this will lead to a wider change or will it fizzle out?

[wanderer4x4]

Originally Posted by rangarx

I get shivers down my spine when I read the news. I may be skeptical but with China sniffing the back at Arunachal Pradesh, Assam's revolt (in exaggerated term, of course) against the Central government is not a good sign. It is the location of state which concerns me.

Whoa, cool down buddy. It's just a simple judgement passed by a high court, no need to take it to international geopolitical relationship. And it's no revolt by Assam, it's a judgement passed by the Gauhati High Court (and not Assam High Court as many here are referring to it). And all high courts of the country are under the complete control of the Supreme court of India, so even if the high court judges wish, they won't be able to revolt. Moreover, as many members have already pointed out, the courts pass judgements on whatever cases come to their tables, subject to acceptance. Revolt against the central govt or any govt for that matter is the last thing on their minds.

So, chill mate! China is not coming down here any time soon just because of this judgement.

PS - I think the thread title also needs to be changed a bit. Currently to the casual reader it seems like Assam govt has banned the cars, rather it's the high court order. So the title should have been more like "Gauhati High Court directs govt to allow sale of only crash tested vehicles" or something like that.

[Asish_VK]

Originally Posted by renegade004

Why the short shrift to the Indian market? Is it simply because they can get away with it since there are not enough regulations regarding safety here?

I would have asked whether it is also because the consumers are ignorant, but reading some of the comments against the honourable court's order here makes me think that some of us don't care about safety as long as the price is right.

Well, you can get one of those reasons why manufacturers are taking us granted by reading through the posts here in thread itself

More than the laws being not robust and strict, Its People's attitude of 'chalta hai' towards safety.

So many criticism against this law, within this thread while we were supposed to support such move, we are eager to find the shortcomings and flaws in the law.

IMO, the law should be effective for the vehicles which will be produced from now on. and if Assam HC and Govt think they don’t want to sell any more cars without crash tests, let it be. Let’s be more considerate towards our safety than manufacturer's loss

Asish

[pratyush6]

Great move by the Courts.

I do not think it will last though. The clout of Auto Manufacturers in this country is simply too much. How I wish this is replicated across all states.

[amvj]

I just don't know about the back ground of this but I think it will be temporary.

I think the manufacturers will queue up to the Govt. officials with bags of money in the background to allow them to sell. However, I really wish this ban on all states. Manufacturers should not really underestimate this country and sell rubbish. We should also get world class safe vehicles in this country.

[ashwin489]

Originally Posted by apachelongbow

There is a reason why we have our government make laws and rules. Every law needs to be vetted by both houses of the parliament which has elected representatives of the people who vote for or against a proposed law keeping in mind the interests of the people who have voted them into their seats. A judge is appointed by the government, he or she has no interest in the people or their wishes per se. If judges and the court continue to interfere in the democratic process and implement ad hoc rules, there might be a day we all will be asked to stay indoors to prevent any crimes!!

Right, so all the laws that we have right now is a result of due democratic process? As in, does it actually represent the opinion and will of the majority of people? You, sir, are a dreamer and/or in denial!

None of the people that make laws for me represent me, my views or anyone that I know of. We live in a proxy democracy. And, yes, I also accept responsibility for not making an effort to change these realities around me.

Originally Posted by apachelongbow

Ask yourself, are you willing to pay a lac more per any model for al l safety bells and whistles? There is a reason why manufacturers are making models with bling bling lights, alloy wheels and fancy gizmos instead of abs/ebd or airbags, the gizmos sell.

Yes, and I paid for the safety features.

I like examples, so hear me out. If hospitals offered reusable syringes instead of disposable syringes for 1/100th cost, a lot of people may opt for it. However, that should NOT be considered a victory for democracy, free-market capitalism and other buzzwords that make us feel gooey inside. Not every darn thing in a society needs to be market-driven.

[rattanw]

I think this is an awesome move by the Gauhati High Court. Whether one terms this as judicial activism or something else, the fact remains that someone had to step in to improve the state of automotive industry in India and one High Court just did that.

In our country, conformance to regulations and customer benefits are usually relegated to the bottom of the list for most of the industries and automotive industry is the forerunner in pursuing such practices. How else can one explain 'paying more for less' in virtually all categories.

Contrary to popular view, I think that this move may be beneficial to the automotive industry as well, aside from benefiting consumers. If this order is implemented, which I highly doubt, but truly hope for, it will provide a much needed push to the automotive industry to gear up their production facilities in time for 2017 implementation of a much larger revamp in safety standards. It will also serve as an incentive to voluntarily launch and sell safer vehicles in states other than Assam since production facilities are same. However, this may purely be speculation at this point as no one knows what will happen especially with so many vested interests bent on derailing the entire move.

[rajneeesh]

A typical case of Judicial overreach. The lordships have forgotten that they are a part of the judiciary rather than the legislature which is supposed to pass the laws, and the executive which is supposed to implement them.

In a country where cases drag on for decades, and undertrials spend years behind bars awaiting trials, the Judiciary should be concerned about correct and speedy justice delivery. They are ill- equipped to get into things like these. They can direct the government to look into these important issues. Issuing ban orders at the drop of a hat is simply not cricket.

We all understnd the need for safer vehicles. This however has to follow a process. Timelines have to be laid down so that manufacturers can make preparations to make vehicles that meet the norms. I belive the government has a road map for that. While we may disagree with the extended timelines, one cannot announce bans without giving any notice for the people and the industry to prepare for it.

However, this may well be a means of getting the Executive to take notice of a burning problem. Our law makers and govt do not act till some one ( on several issues Judiciary) pushes them to act.

[Swapnil4585]

Originally Posted by rajneeesh

A typical case of Judicial overreach.

We all understnd the need for safer vehicles. This however has to follow a process. Timelines have to be laid down so that manufacturers can make preparations to make vehicles that meet the norms. I belive the government has a road map for that. While we may disagree with the extended timelines, one cannot announce bans without giving any notice for the people and the industry to prepare for it.

I think it is the other way round. The law makers were inactive on the issue of mandating the manufacturers to build safe cars since past 2 decades, and the manufacturers set the tastes of customers towards buying a car with better interior designs, cosmetic features, etc. So since both of these were reluctant, the judiciary was asked to step in.

Anomalies in it apart, we BHPians must welcome this Order.

[rajneeesh]

While the objective is laudable, the way this order has been passed is not. The constitution has provided for division of powers to check abuse of power ( a feature borrowed from the US constitution). The three legs are to operate in their own spheres.

If Judiciary starts getting into making of laws with no check on them, they may well make laws on subjects which they have on expertise on, or laws which effect our lives.For example they may well declare that no one can drive a black colored vehicle.

There are enough problems in the judicial system itself . These should be the priority of the judiciary.

This order is the result of a petition filed by an individual. The same route can be adopted by "interested parties" to get into the getting laws / decisions favourable to them passed. A relative of a judge may also take up a brief on behaf of an interested party for percuniary benefits.

[apachelongbow]

Originally Posted by ashwin489

Right, so all the laws that we have right now is a result of due democratic process? As in, does it actually represent the opinion and will of the majority of people? You, sir, are a dreamer and/or in denial!

None of the people that make laws for me represent me, my views or anyone that I know of. We live in a proxy democracy. And, yes, I also accept responsibility for not making an effort to change these realities around me.



Yes, and I paid for the safety features.

I like examples, so hear me out. If hospitals offered reusable syringes instead of disposable syringes for 1/100th cost, a lot of people may opt for it. However, that should NOT be considered a victory for democracy, free-market capitalism and other buzzwords that make us feel gooey inside. Not every darn thing in a society needs to be market-driven.

All this talk because you want courts to make laws? Because you don't believe in our democratic process so you would rather have a dictatorial government?
If you spent time and read as to what I wrote, you would realise that my objection is not on the ruling, but on the matter that courts can't and shouldn't frame laws thereby undermining the democratic process. If they do so, then every khap can legally frame laws..

[ashwin489]

Originally Posted by apachelongbow

All this talk because you want courts to make laws? Because you don't believe in our democratic process so you would rather have a dictatorial government?
If you spent time and read as to what I wrote, you would realise that my objection is not on the ruling, but on the matter that courts can't and shouldn't frame laws thereby undermining the democratic process. If they do so, then every khap can legally frame laws..

I never said that I don't believe in the concept of democracy, but I merely stated that our democracy doesn't work the way its supposed to. Probably I missed the essence of your argument, but you do know that our democracy has a structure in place to appeal against this ban, right? This is not the end of discussion, but a beginning rather.

When 'democratically' elected representatives are not able to see what their people NEED, aren't you glad that there is a fairly independent body out there to sound the alarm bells?

Our democratically elected representatives do not have any real-world incentive (i.e. something they can claim as an achievement in the election manifesto) by passing these laws. Honestly, if this ban did not come into effect, when do you think our democratically elected representatives would have even considered this a real issue?