Go Back   Team-BHP > BHP India > The Indian Car Scene

Closed Thread
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11th May 2012, 20:18   #1366
Join Date: May 2009
Location: India
Posts: 587
Thanked: 647 Times
Thumbs up Re: Car tints banned by HC! EDIT: Supreme Court bans all kinds of sunfilms in cars

Originally Posted by abhisheksircar View Post
Any idea how to do it. Clear guidelines will help. I am sure there are enough members here to sign the petition if numbers counts.
You just need to hire a good lawyer, pay him the fees and just relax. He will do all the paper work as per the law. If somebody is not able to afford the fee of the lawyer then he / she should approach the legal aid, provided your annual income is below1.25 lakhs:

Supreme Court Legal Services Committee - FAQ


You can also file the petition online and appear as petitioner in person: Supreme Court of India - FAQ

But appearing as a petitioner in person is VERY TOUGH. For example if your petition contains Hon'ble as hon'ble then it will be rejected at first level itself, forget about the spelling / grammatical mistakes. So hiring a lawyer is the best option as common man, who is not aware of all the formalities.

Originally Posted by Mad Max View Post
I wonder why the major automotive magazine editors are not speaking out on this. Autocar, Zigwheels etc must have some senior editors with considerable influence to provide their views to the media. I see absolute pin-drop silence on this issue. Have they been bought off by the sun-film manufacturers so that they can all make money once again a few months down the line?
I've also written to Skoda asking them if they will help in tinted glasses right from the company. Let's see what their response is.
Mad max, nobody can speak against such orders in public!

Originally Posted by selfdrive View Post
In my humble opinion, the relevant people should have considered the impact of it on people, both monetary and healthwise. tomorrow if the petition against this PIL is upheld and the PIL dismissed, will the court reimburse the people for all the sunfilms they removed?
The law of the land looks in to the facts of the case along with the supporting facts. It takes it own seet time and follow its own legal procedure.

Why would any court reimburse the money of public? It has given an order / judgement which can only be challneged in a certain manner.

There are so many laws in India, which are already being misused and the innocent people are suffering. Not even the law minister is concerned about them. There will be loss of money because of this order, think about those people who are sent to jail under FALSE charges. There was an instance where a man was jailed when he was young but after more than 20 years he was found to be NOT guilty and he came out as an OLD man. He wasted his precious golden years of his life in jail. Whom to complain? Will anybody pay him any compensation? Sunfilms are nothing as compared to others.

Sometimes the judiciary is also helpless. As per today's TOI, Mr. Chisty form pakistan has got a bail:

NEW DELHI: Twenty years after he got involved in a brawl resulting in a person's death while on a visit to India, octogenarian Pakistani virologist Mohammed Khalil Chishty may get to see his home and family in Karachi again.
The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed Chishty to visit his Karachi home till November 1 on a security deposit of Rs 5 lakh. The virologist has been convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. He is out on bail pending an appeal against the verdict in the apex court.

The go-ahead by a bench of Justices P Sathasivam and J Chelameswar came despite additional solicitor general Mohan Parasaran's apprehension that absence of an extradition treaty with Pakistan would make it difficult for India to bring Chishty back if he decided not to return.
The court also asked Chishty to surrender his passport to the Indian high commission office at Karachi immediately after he reaches his hometown.
Source: Supreme Court allows Chishty to visit Pak till Nov 1 on surety of 5 lakh - The Times of India

Murder convicts are easily going to hospitals using the same law and celebrating Diwali. Everybody knows the fact but such people make use of the same law. Total 87 visits in 8 years:

Vikas Yadav’s many trips to AIIMS: HC calls for his medical records - Indian Express
Katara murder: Court sets up panel to probe convicts' hospital visits

If we really want a change, we need to modify our constitution, which is not an easy task.


Last edited by Irish : 11th May 2012 at 20:31. Reason: spelling mistake
Irish is offline   (5) Thanks
Old 11th May 2012, 21:52   #1367
autocrat's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 623
Thanked: 442 Times
Default Re: Front windscreen sunfilm?

I posted this in another thread - reposting here. Hope this helps:

Well Friends - 50 or 70 does not matter - according to the judgement, any kind of film that modifies the VLT of the car glasses is illegal.

Please note that criticizing / commenting on judgement given by any court can put you in trouble - contempt of court - so please read and keep your opinions to yourself


Relevant excerpts:

16. In face of the language of the Rule, we cannot grant the
petitioner the relief prayed for, that there should be 100 per
cent VLT. This Court cannot issue directions that vehicles
should have glasses with 100 per cent VLT. Rule 100 of the
Rules is a valid piece of legislation and is on the statute book.
Once such provision exists, this Court cannot issue directions
contrary to the provision of law. Thus, we decline to grant
this prayer to the petitioner.

17. However, the prayer relating to issuance of directions
prohibiting use of black films on the glasses of vehicles
certainly has merit. On the plain reading of the Rule, it is
clear that car must have safety glass having VLT at the time of
manufacturing 70 per cent for windscreen and 50 per cent for
side windows. It should be so maintained in that condition
thereafter. In other words, the Rule not impliedly, but
specifically, prohibits alteration of such VLT by any means
subsequent to its manufacturing. How and what will be a
"safety glass" has been explained in Explanation to Rule 100.
The Explanation while defining `laminated safety glass' makes
it clear that two or more pieces of glass held together by an
intervening layers of plastic materials so that the glass is held
together in the event of impact. The Rule and the explanation
do not contemplate or give any leeway to the manufacturer or
user of the vehicle to, in any manner, tamper with the VLT.
The Rule and the IS only specify the VLT of the glass itself.

18. Two scenarios must be examined. First, if the glass so
manufactured already has the VLT as specified, then the
question of further reducing it by any means shall be in clear
violation of Rule 100 as well as the prescribed IS. Secondly,
the rule requires a manufacturer to manufacture the vehicles
with safety glasses with prescribed VLT. It is the minimum
percentage that has been specified. The manufacturer may
manufacture vehicle with a higher VLT to the prescribed limit
or even a vehicle with tinted glasses, if such glasses do not fall
short of the minimum prescribed VLT in terms of Rule 100.
None can be permitted to create his own device to bring down
the percentage of the VLT thereafter. Thus, on the plain
reading of the Rule and the IS standards, use of black films of
any density is impermissible. Another adverse aspect of use
of black films is that even if they reflect tolerable VLT in the
day time, still in the night it would clearly violate the
prescribed VLT limits and would result in poor visibility,
which again would be impermissible.

19. The legislative intent attaching due significance to the
`public safety' is evident from the object and reasons of the
Act, the provisions of the Act and more particularly, the Rules
framed thereunder. Even if we assume, for the sake of
argument, that Rule 100 is capable of any interpretation, then
this Court should give it an interpretation which would serve
the legislative intent and the object of framing such rules, in
preference to one which would frustrate the very purpose of
enacting the Rules as well as undermining the public safety
and interest. Use of these black films have been proved to be
criminal's paradise and a social evil. The petitioner has
rightly brought on record the unanimous view of various
police authorities right from the States of Calcutta, Tamil
Nadu and Delhi to the Ministry of Home Affairs that use of
black films on vehicles has jeopardized the security and safety
interests of the State and public at large. This certainly helps
the criminals to escape from the eyes of the police and aids in
commission of heinous crimes like s*xual assault on women,
robberies, kidnapping, etc. If these crimes can be reduced by
enforcing the prohibition of law, it would further the cause of
Rule of Law and Public Interest as well.

21. In the present case as well, even if some individual
interests are likely to suffer, such individual or private
interests must give in to the larger public interest. It is the
duty of all citizens to comply with the law. The Rules are
mandatory and nobody has the authority in law to mould
these rules for the purposes of convenience or luxury and
certainly not for crime. We may also note that a Bench of this
Court, vide its Order dated 15 th December, 1998 in Civil
Appeal No. 3700 of 1999 titled Chandigarh Administration and
Others v. Namit Kumar & Ors., had permitted the use of `light
coloured tinted glasses' only while specifically disapproving
use of films on the vehicles. Subsequently, in the same case,
but on a different date, another Bench of this Court vide its
order reported at [(2004) 8 SCC 446] made a direction that
mandate of sub-Rule (2) of Rule 100 shall be kept in mind
while dealing with such cases.

22. Rightly so, none of the orders of this Court have
permitted use of black films. Rule 100(2) specifies the VLT
percentage of the glasses at the time of manufacture and to be
so maintained even thereafter.

23. In light of the above discussion, we have no hesitation in
holding that use of black films or any other material upon
safety glass, windscreen and side windows is impermissible.

In terms of Rule 100(2), 70 per cent and 50 per cent VLT
standard are relatable to the manufacture of the safety glasses
for the windshields (front and rear) and the side windows
respectively. Use of films or any other material upon the
windscreen or the side windows is impermissible in law. It is
the VLT of the safety glass without any additional material
being pasted upon the safety glasses which must conform
with manufacture specifications.

24. Another issue that has been raised in the present Writ
Petition is that certain VIPs/VVIPs are using black films on
their vehicles for security reasons. Even this practice is not
supported by law, as no notification by the competent
authority has been brought to our notice, giving exemption to
such vehicles from the operation of Rule 100 or any of its
provisions. Be that as it may, we do not wish to enter upon
the arena of the security and safety measures when the police
department and Home Ministry consider such exemption
appropriate. The cases of the persons who have been
provided with Z and Z+ security category may be considered
by a Committee consisting of the Director General of
Police/Commissioner of Police of the concerned State and the
Home Secretary of that State/Centre. It will be for that
Committee to examine such cases for grant of exemption in
accordance with law and upon due application of mind.
These certificates should be provided only in relation to official
cars of VIPs/VVIPs, depending upon the category of security
that such person has been awarded by the competent
authority. The appropriate government is free to make any
regulations that it may consider appropriate in this regard.

25. The competent officer of the traffic police or any other
authorized person shall challan such vehicles for violating
Rules 92 and 100 of the Rules with effect from the specified
date and thereupon shall also remove the black films from the
offending vehicles.

26. The manufacturer of the vehicle may manufacture the
vehicles with tinted glasses which have Visual Light
Transmission (VLT) of safety glasses windscreen (front and
rear) as 70 per cent VLT and side glasses as 40 per cent VLT,
respectively. No black film or any other material can be
pasted on the windscreens and side glasses of a vehicle.

27. For the reasons afore-stated, we prohibit 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 Home Secretary,
Director General/Commissioner of Police of the respective
States/Centre shall ensure compliance with this direction.
The directions contained in this judgment shall become
operative and enforceable with effect from 4 th May, 2012.

28. With the above directions, we partially allow this writ
petition and prohibit use of black films of any percentage VLT
upon the safety glasses, windscreens (front and rear) and side
glasses. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Last edited by autocrat : 11th May 2012 at 21:55.
autocrat is offline   (1) Thanks
Old 11th May 2012, 22:15   #1368
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gurgaon
Posts: 25
Thanked: 21 Times
Default Delhi Police advt. regarding sun film

Attached. Published in Mail Today 11 May 2012.
Clearly states that only company fitted tinted glasses are permitted.
Attached Images
manuc is offline   (1) Thanks
Old 11th May 2012, 22:56   #1369
autocrat's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 623
Thanked: 442 Times
Default Re: Front windscreen sunfilm?

Originally Posted by siddheshb View Post
As someone who loves the look of his black SUV with tinted glasses, I hate this ruling. I hate having to peel it off.

But if I keep that aside, it is a pretty sensible ruling. Just the fact that so many of us use dark tinted glasses doesn't make it alright. Yes, we cannot blame every rape and terror attack on tinted glasses, but I am sure a LOT of it will get curbed.

No point blaming the police and accusing them of corruption, when all they are doing is implementing a Supreme Court ruling. The fine right now is just 100 anyway - why does one have to grease palms? And if you do not have tinted glasses, why would the police stop you anyway?
Far more rapes, murders, and such heinous crimes have happened in buildings. Extending the same logic, will we have to live in glass houses?

The problem remains as it is - evil people continue to remain in the society and will soon find different ways to hurt people.

Along with taking small steps like banning sun film use, more needs to be done. Police must work on cracking cases, catch perpetrators of heinous crimes, and courts should punish them with maximum punishment, provide justice to the victims.
autocrat is offline   (1) Thanks
Old 11th May 2012, 23:54   #1370
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: New Delhi
Posts: 32
Thanked: 12 Times
Default Re: Car tints banned by HC! EDIT: Supreme Court bans all kinds of sunfilms in cars

Guys, how is the situation in Bangalore? I haven't seen any active drive for removing sun films.
simplynitin is offline  
Old 12th May 2012, 00:02   #1371
Senior - BHPian
rohanjf's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 1,190
Thanked: 682 Times
Default Re: Car tints banned by HC! EDIT: Supreme Court bans all kinds of sunfilms in cars

I've had light tint on rear windshield, and 3 door glasses except driver's (call me stupid, but I've been afraid to put tint on driver door glass for visibility reasons). Now that I have to remove the tints, I'm planning to put them on my ORVMs (especially the left one), to fight the trailing high-beams. Will that put me in trouble?
rohanjf is offline  
Old 12th May 2012, 00:20   #1372
Jo-G's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 70
Thanked: 37 Times
Default Re: Car tints banned by HC! EDIT: Supreme Court bans all kinds of sunfilms in cars

We always try to solve the wrong problems and then later realize it doesn't actually solve the problem because the ones who want to do any crime will always find a way to do it. In a country were the temperatures sore to new heights every year, and fuel prices hit new heights every now and then, a car with proper tint (like thermal block and allow visual light) it is quite absurd that the the apex court has given such a verdict. We are in technologically advanced era and these type of stone age rules should be re-looked at. Why not impose a rule that says only authorized tint is allowed (like the ISI for helmets). Even in the Gulf (UAE) where we have stricter Sharia laws allows certain amount of tint for general public. Actually a good tint increases the efficiency of cooling by blocking thermal radiation while allowing visual light. Is our "so called" law makers living in stone age? Do they not have access to technologies like TV, Computers, Newspapers, Magazines, etc.... This is ridiculous. This could also be a ploy/nexus for removing all the film and then allowing it to help the film manufacturers.

One thing that I really don't understand is that, the cops are so efficient in such cases when it comes to a option to make money but takes ages to implement or make arrangements/maintain the roads/parking areas or even reach an accident spot or to take action against the trucks and buses that ply on the right most lane in a 3 lane carriageway. We are quick to implement rules that impacts common man or those that has impact to increase waste or that impacts and wastes energy but takes ages to implement anything that can conserve energy.
Jo-G is offline   (3) Thanks
Old 12th May 2012, 01:42   #1373
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Chennai
Posts: 277
Thanked: 147 Times
Default Re: Car tints banned by HC! EDIT: Supreme Court bans all kinds of sunfilms in cars

Its been a week since the rule was in place but Its really quite in Chennai. I hope they get into act after the end of month so atleast we can escape from this hot may month.
klassics45 is offline  
Old 12th May 2012, 06:49   #1374
Senior - BHPian
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NH209
Posts: 1,605
Thanked: 681 Times
Default Re: Car tints banned by HC! EDIT: Supreme Court bans all kinds of sunfilms in cars

Seriously, this is turning out to be a ranting(only) thread and some of the comments are even more ridiculous than the original judgement.

We know about the lack of proper policing in this country owing to manpower shortage as well as inefficiency of the existing force, therefore if any rule is going to make their job easier, i wouldn't mind giving up that small discomfort arising out of that rule.
ramzsys is offline   (1) Thanks
Old 12th May 2012, 10:02   #1375
s.prashanth's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bangalore
Posts: 358
Thanked: 59 Times
Default Re: Car tints banned by HC! EDIT: Supreme Court bans all kinds of sunfilms in cars

updates from other cities are not there especially calcutta, hyderabad, jaipur, lucknow, mysore, mangalore,cochin, and other tier 2 cities.We do have bhpinans in these towns, please update us with the situations in your towns
s.prashanth is offline  
Old 12th May 2012, 10:40   #1376
aroop's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kolkata
Posts: 124
Thanked: 19 Times
Default Re: Car tints banned by HC! EDIT: Supreme Court bans all kinds of sunfilms in cars

Update from Kolkata: there has been no action whatsoever. I have not seen any cop stopping anyone other than bikewalas without helmets and goods carriers. But I must add, that they have become quite strict with the standard rules like traffic signal and one way.
There has been no communication on sun film from the local media either. However my experience says that most of the vehicles have very light tint or none at all. Dark glasses are very rare.
aroop is offline  
Old 12th May 2012, 10:53   #1377
Cuatro's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Hyderabad
Posts: 47
Thanked: 34 Times

In NSW, Australia, where I was living for the past 5 years, the ' darkest legal' tint is 35% and almost all businesses try to sell "legal" products as they run the risk of closure of business by the Government if found violating the law. Anyway, the scenario in Australia is totally different from that of India. Whereas most Indians try to find a way to break laws and get away with it, Aussies try to abide by the laws of the land. Today, Australia is one of the most law abiding nations in the world in spite of having built by convicts a couple of centuries ago.

Now coming back to the tints, I see people passing statements against the law, but no one thinks of how it could reduce driver errors caused by low visibility of the rear and the sides on the roads. Another point is about the low visibity of roads at nights and during monsoons due to darker tints.
I request TBHPians to respect the law. No one is above the law. One more point we should note is that laws are not made for the comforts of people, they are made to address the changing social situations and trends.
And yes, VIPs are no exceptions to the law.
Cuatro is offline  
Old 12th May 2012, 11:31   #1378
Senior - BHPian
Gansan's Avatar
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Chennai
Posts: 3,389
Thanked: 830 Times
Default Re: Car tints banned by HC! EDIT: Supreme Court bans all kinds of sunfilms in cars

Business as usual in Chennai. I brought my car to the office today after a week. It has wind shield film (not easily noticeable) and noticeably dark window/rear wind shield films. Nobody stopped me anywhere. So far I have not heard of any action on this front in Chennai/TN.
Gansan is offline  
Old 12th May 2012, 11:48   #1379
coloneljasi's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: KL-11
Posts: 671
Thanked: 214 Times
Default Re: Car tints banned by HC! EDIT: Supreme Court bans all kinds of sunfilms in cars

Originally Posted by raamki View Post
Yes it is legal. As per the judgement, any tints provided by the manufacturer that meets the 70/50/70 VLT specification for the front, sides and back respectively is legal.

Any aftermarket films of the same specification sadly is illegal. I have no clue why this double standard in the ruling. And am dumbfounded why none of the film companies haven't raised any objection to his judgement as yet!
We've got a circular from the manufacturer saying the same thing. But I believe that the Hon' SC has ruled against all sun films, even if it is supplied by the vehicle manufacturer and/or applied by it's dealers.

I suppose most people will refrain from fixing sunfilms of whatever specification, till the rules become a bit more clearer (no pun intended).

A friend of mine had sunfilms worth around 50k stuck onto his Vento. I guess that's all down the drain, so as to speak!

Most government vehicles have sunfilms afixed that make the glass panes look like they were painted black. Yet to see any action on that front in Kerala as well. Spotted a few police vehicles and government vehicles still running with them.
coloneljasi is offline  
Old 12th May 2012, 11:53   #1380
HighOctane's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 362
Thanked: 165 Times

Originally Posted by simplynitin
Guys, how is the situation in Bangalore? I haven't seen any active drive for removing sun films.
In Bangalore the drive against sunfilms ban to start from May 20th. Bangalore Traffice Police has arranged camps in 8 places to get the sunfilm removed by 19th May
HighOctane is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Supreme Court bans registration of diesel cars over 2,000 cc in Delhi & NCR:EDIT lifted with 1% cess neeld The Indian Car Scene 394 15th August 2016 16:17
Supreme Court bans pressure / musical / multi-sound Horns darklord The Indian Car Scene 29 20th July 2016 18:25
Protest against Tata Motors.EDIT Supreme Court Orders Tata to repair Sumo (pg.40) v1p3r The Indian Car Scene 713 19th January 2013 18:31
Supreme Court bans tourism in core areas of Tiger reserves across the country gauravdgr8 Shifting gears 26 17th October 2012 14:02

All times are GMT +5.5. The time now is 22:09.

Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Team-BHP.com
Proudly powered by E2E Networks