[pganapathy]

I have to say the logic applied by the SC is totally flawed in their judgement here.

Take the following example.

A pen can be used to stab and murder somebody. Does a pen therefore become a weapon that now needs to be regulated. The same applies to say rope that can be used to strangle somebody. The list of everyday items that can be used for dangerous and illegal purposes is huge. Do we therefore have to control or ban them.

It is obvious to me that this decision has not been thought through carefully.

[vinjosep]

Originally Posted by Jeeper1941

What a ridiculous "order". What is the reason for this? Would be grateful if anyone could fill me in on this..

This thread might give you some insights

http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/indian...ilms-cars.html

There are quite a few posts therein which point to the PIL as well as the verdict.

@Mods: Can't we merge the poll with the above thread? Since the discussion seems to border on the same line, a single thread would make better sense I guess.

[Jeeper1941]

Originally Posted by vinjosep

This thread might give you some insights

.

Vinjosep, thanks for that. So let me get this straight..the reason they are banning window tinting is to deter criminals from committing crimes (such as theft, rapes etc), and reduce road rage and accidents?!

What a stupid knee jerk reaction by politicians that can point to this and say "look we are doing something about the problem, so don't blame us".

Window films reduce AC use which reduces energy use, and won’t that save India more money in the long run than the number of people using this to escape criminal prosecution? Too often politicians seem unable to reason and just pass regulations without thinking.

Not to mention the number of people in the window-tinting industry who will be out of a job.

[vinjosep]

Originally Posted by Jeeper1941

Vinjosep, thanks for that. So let me get this straight..the reason they are banning window tinting is to deter criminals from committing crimes (such as theft, rapes etc), and reduce road rage and accidents?!

What a stupid knee jerk reaction by politicians that can point to this and say "look we are doing something about the problem, so don't blame us".

U r Welcome!

The verdict --> http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/...c%2026511p.txt

The PIL --> SAVE AAM ADMI

The politicians, AFAIK, were/ are mute spectators. The PIL was by a "NGO" (from whose website I pasted the PIL)

[Fillmore]

Originally Posted by Jeeper1941

What a stupid knee jerk reaction by politicians that can point to this and say "look we are doing something about the problem, so don't blame us".

Someone in one of the previous threads or FB had rightly quoted.

Just because some people are pissing on walls, doesn't mean that we demolish all the walls.

[Velmurugan]

I agree to allowing the window tint with desired 30% tint level which is followed in most of the Countries, especially in Middle East where the temperature reaches to 50 Deg.C in the mid afternoon during peak Summer.
The 30% tint with good quality film meets the requirement & keeps the car cool & at the same time good visibility, especially during nights.
In India, I have used Garware Ice Cool Shield for Front, & Ice Cool Lite for rear/sides.
Defintely the film is little more expensive than other local brands & less than 3M/V-Kool/LLumar etc.
In India, we dont have much street lights & during dark with dark film, visibility is greatly reduced at least for me. During day if required we fix additional dark rollup shade when doing a long run. This is my personal opinion.

[somubj]

This is really dumb on SCs part to ban the sun films. Ones that block 100% visibility might be the problem creators but i don't think anything less than 40% will matter anyhow.

And what is the difference between manufacturer installed films/tinted glasses and we guys getting it done on our own.

They should have given it a good thought before rolling out this stupid guideline.

[Visaster]

I am not going to remove the sun films until forced to by any cop. The cost of removing and the fixing again after the rule dies down is not worth the effort and money.
Have done this 6 years back in Bangalore.
Some crazy motoring rules in this country.
Till last month they were catching all other state vehicle and collecting road tax forcefully even if they were just passing by.
And this month this.
I am doing the same things which I was doing 3 months back but I feel like a criminal now, thanks to the impulsive change of rules going around. Big price to pay to evade cops with a crazy rule stick.

[vishwasvr]

Here's a link to the writ petition:

http://www.bangaloretrafficpolice.go...intedglass.pdfhttp://www.bangaloretrafficpolice.go...intedglass.pdf

I went through it yesterday and I can only say that there are so many logical flaws in the petition.

A few questions that I have:

Point 5, A device called luxometer can measure the level of
opaqueness in windows owing to the application of black films
but this device is a scarce resource and is very scantily
available with the police personnel in India:

My question is: Why not purchase a few (or dozens) instead?

Point 8, Non-availability of electronic devices to measure
violations and lack of police force to enforce the Rules are also
apparent from these replies:

Why not focus on increasing the availability of the devices and increase the police staff instead?

The petitioner also states that
the use of black films is not prevalent in developed and/or
developing countries all over the world. In fact, in some of the
countries, it is specifically banned. In Afghanistan, Belarus,
Nigeria, Uganda and even in Pakistan, use of black films on
the vehicle glasses is banned. Use of black films is not
prevalent in United States of America, United Kingdom,
Germany and other countries as well.

Traffic offenders abroad are taken to task very seriously for traffic violations too! Why not take serious, severe action here too?

Point 24, 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 securityPage*18
18
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.

How much more security can you provide to a person with Z and Z+ category!

It's a shame this is largely a one-sided judgement and adversely affects the civil society. Because we aren't rapists, dacoits, thugs, thieves etc. We need the sun films to protect ourselves from harmful UV rays, prying eyes. We are just regular people who use 4 wheeler to commute during the weekdays.

The heat is just unbearable even with the sun films. I can only imagine what it would be like without them!

God save us!

[autotranny]

Mine has a very lite tint only. I'm thinking of telling the cops that they were fitted by the company. and that I know nothing about it (with a oh so ignorant face). But above all, I think the cops in Hyderabad are way to pre-occupied with things to check this. Did not hear of any instance in Hyd, where tinted vehicles have been caught/warned. Fellow hydeez please enlighten me.

[PrideRed]

I dont have a sun film in my current cars. I believe the tints provided by the manufacturer is quite adequate for most of the conditions and films also makes the car claustrophobic.

I guess some states in India have already follow this. I remember paying fine in Madhya Pradesh and Jharkhand for having Sun Film in our car(in 2009).

[S_U_N]

I removed Garware sun film from my Zen from all the four doors. I still have kept them on the rear windshield and the quarter glass area.
The film came out pretty cleanly, but I was shocked at the amount of pulling effort that I had to put in.
My hands started paining after the whole exercise.
Mr. Muscle and WD40 did not help as such. There are few sticky areas left. I will get rid of that in a few days.

[ambujlal]

Originally Posted by vishwasvr

It's a shame this is largely a one-sided judgement and adversely affects the civil society. Because we aren't rapists, dacoits, thugs, thieves etc. We need the sun films to protect ourselves from harmful UV rays, prying eyes. We are just regular people who use 4 wheeler to commute during the weekdays.

God save us!

Why not people get together and file PILs for banning production of rope (used to strangulate and suicide), pens (can be used to stab), kerosene (women are burnt using that), cigarette (wondering why SC hasn't banned this yet) and many more such things. Since police cannot stop the use of these and they all can be used in criminal activities, let the SC ban them. My point is that SC has gone blind with this blanket ban and the only way is to irritate SC with a flurry of PILs.

PS: please delete this post if it sounds rash and senseless. I am annoyed, period.

[gostel]

Any system is bound to crash when it is overburdened. Too many PILs can drive the judiciary to such desperation that they can ban sun control films in cars to deter rapists. What comes next? Maybe they will ask transparent bushes if the rapists decide to shift to bushes. Or then if most rapes happen in houses then we may have to build them with transparent bricks.

I am curious to know this: weren't vintage cars used for such acts when sun-control films weren't invented?

A plea from my side: why not exempt the A segment Alto from this no-film rule? This fuel efficient little car is not used for such horrible acts, I tell you; and also it comes with a little weak A/C; please?

[ivar1951]

I wonder what is the law on pull-down sun screens that can be installed in vehicles? Anyone -- when up to mischief -- can use these and roll them back when not needed.