[Raccoon]

Note from the Team-BHP Support Staff: Post deleted. Abusive language – whether used directly or indirectly - is STRICTLY prohibited on Team-BHP. A decent communication protocol must be adhered to. Foul language and use of abusive words/photographs in posts/avatars/signatures/topics is STRICTLY prohibited.

[kippu]

maybe this whole thing is being done by the sunfilm lobby , first get it removed from the cars , then repeal the law and everyone runs to get one on their car

[deep_bang]

Originally Posted by kippu

maybe this whole thing is being done by the sunfilm lobby , first get it removed from the cars , then repeal the law and everyone runs to get one on their car

Me too thinks the same. This is exactly similar to the helmet rule in various states of India...

[richie4u]

I too have the same feeling cause when the govt. tries to increase prices in a particular sector, all the manufacturers make such a big issue.But over here where the product is banned altogether,why aren't the sunfilm manufacturers feeling the heat(pun intended)?

[Daewood]

Originally Posted by Sedate

Lack of governance and Supreme court taking the role - Court-ocarcy!

A nice writeup came in this sunday's Hindu about Judicial overreach. Even the sun film case is mentioned. It's a shortened version of T. R. Andhyarujina, former Solicitor General of India's lecture at a recent event. http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article3731471.ece

An important quote from the article

The answer often given by the judiciary to this type of overreach is that it is compelled to take upon this task as the other branches of government have failed in their obligations. On this specious justification, the political branches of government may, by the same logic, take over the functions of the judiciary when it has failed, and there can be no doubt that there are many areas where the judiciary has failed to meet the expectations of the public by its inefficiency and areas of cases.

[MindSpeeDs]

Has someone here been caught/fined/asked to remove the film when they have 70% vlt film all around? Sometimes 70 can even pass away as a tinted glass from the manufacturers end. At least from a distance

[msdivy]

Originally Posted by kippu

maybe this whole thing is being done by the sunfilm lobby , first get it removed from the cars , then repeal the law and everyone runs to get one on their car

Thats one theory. Another theory I have heard is some politician wants to supply 70% VLT tinted glass to OEMs. Hence the ban on sun films.

Last weekend, in J'nagar 4th block, police pulled over a Verna for dark sun films. A lady down and was trying to explain how she went to the dealer and dealer said her sun films are ok, etc. Without any device I could guess her films were at least 20% VLT and she spent like 30 minutes wasting her time and police officer's time all for Rs 100.

[StarrySky]

If I understand correctly, the Supreme Court has not made any new laws, but it has simply interpreted the existing provisions in the motor vehicle rules. I beleive the judges have said as much in the latest hearing on the review petition. I fail to see where the judicial overreach is in this case.

[avira_tk]

Originally Posted by StarrySky

If I understand correctly, the Supreme Court has not made any new laws, but it has simply interpreted the existing provisions in the motor vehicle rules. I beleive the judges have said as much in the latest hearing on the review petition. I fail to see where the judicial overreach is in this case.

The judicial over reach is interpreting the law, which says that OEM glass should have VLT of 70/50 - implies sun films are not allowed, is conjecture. Judicial overreach it is. Is there any investigation done after this to see if all the wild claims of criminal activity has been addressed by this ruling?

I have said this before, just bears repeating, the ruling is just an excuse for cops to go on power trip. No one has any obligation to let strangers have a look at what is in your vehicle.

[StarrySky]

Originally Posted by avira_tk

The judicial over reach is interpreting the law, which says that OEM glass should have VLT of 70/50 - implies sun films are not allowed, is conjecture. Judicial overreach it is.

You are also just interpreting the rule in your own way. The court has taken a stricter interpretation, whereas a more lenient interpretation would be convenient to you.

If I am not mistaken, nowhere in CMVR does it say that you can stick or not stick anything on the glass. From your point of view, since sticking anything on the glass is not explicitly "prevented" in the rules, it is allowed. From court's point of view, since sticking anything on the glass is not explicitly "allowed" in the rules, it is not allowed.

Originally Posted by avira_tk

Is there any investigation done after this to see if all the wild claims of criminal activity has been addressed by this ruling?

The PIL surely mentioned safety aspects, but I think the court has made it clear that their judgement is based on interpretation of existing provisions and not based on the safety aspect.

[avira_tk]

Originally Posted by StarrySky

If I am not mistaken, nowhere in CMVR does it say that you can stick or not stick anything on the glass. From your point of view, since sticking anything on the glass is not explicitly "prevented" in the rules, it is allowed. From court's point of view, since sticking anything on the glass is not explictly "allowed" in the rules, it is not allowed.

The rules deal with OEM glass, not with sun films. The court should have given something other than "that is the rule" to give an excuse for cops to vandalise our cars. Visibility should be measured from inside the car, sun films, other than black opaque ones, rarely mess with that aspect.

I really hope the government makes film legal, without restrictions so that the court can go back and work on actual litigation, without creating a nuisance for average drivers trying to get to work or home.

[Daewood]

Originally Posted by StarrySky

The PIL surely mentioned safety aspects, but I think the court has made it clear that their judgement is based on interpretation of existing provisions and not based on the safety aspect.

You are quoting from the recent observations of the court. Please read the first judgment made about a couple of months back, which triggered the entire confusion.
The judgement was a reaction to the safety angle as imagined by the PIL guy and the fact that traffic cops don't have VLT meters. It's like passing a judgment saying that you should not drive in any gear beyond 2nd, because the cops don't have speed guns and the permissible limit is only 40kph.

The court has taken a stricter interpretation, whereas a more lenient interpretation would be convenient to you.

There is nothing like 'strict' implementation or 'lenient' implementation. On what basis will you decide that?

[blackasta]

IMO this rule, alongwith the Gujarat high court verdict to convert all cars to CNG within an year, is judicial overreach. There are a lot of important and socially meaningful ways hon'ble courts can direct the enforcement for improving the law and order situation rather than these types of judgement which hurts the pocket of the common man.

[drmohitg]

What hurts more is the fact that what was legal on Monday evening suddenly became illegal the next morning without leaving any scope for a dialogue on its overall implications. And I am well withing my rights to protest since I spent a large sum of money to get "Supposedly Legal Tints" on my car which even came with a certificate claiming its Legality.

I am pretty sure that according to this rule the retractable screens that are provided by some high end car makers are illegal now since they effectively reduce the VLT to well below the permissible limits. So why doesn't the court issue a contempt of court notice to them in the first place rather then letting the customer suffer on the roads at the hands of bribe hungry cops?

[Raccoon]

Originally Posted by kippu

maybe this whole thing is being done by the sunfilm lobby , first get it removed from the cars , then repeal the law and everyone runs to get one on their car

A very interesting point. And something that so called "law abiding" citizens should note. Thats what happens when you try to follow the law in letter rather than in spirit.... someone can just take advantage of you.

Whatever the case, one can only pray that this amendments are made to this myopic interpretation of the law AT LEAST by summer. Else we (at least those with less effective ACs) are going to be baked turkeys. Not to mention it will also lead to more wear of the AC, higher fuel consumption and sunburns for occupants.