[mannubhai]

Originally Posted by Optimus7

Women folks will certainly feel much safer in cabs without any sun films, when travelling alone.
I am still seeing a lot of cars with dark tints in chennai. The least the cops can do is remove the tints from these offenders. If people violate a direct order by the Highest judiciary in the country, what type of signal does it send to the next generation?

======
Optimus, Women drivers dont agree to that I'm told. Most of my friends belonging to the fairer-sex, who drive to work , feel less comfortable and prone to threats without the films. Its not just about the stares and being "raped by the eyes" situation. They drive back at odd hours and are truly exposed with no privacy what so ever.

Originally Posted by naveen.raju

Is it true that light sun films are allowed? My friend was caught yesterday and the cop (SI) told him to go for light films if necessary. He had medium dark ones.

=======
Naveen, the ruling is clear that you CANNOT have any film in the car.

[Alive2Drive]

Hi Guys,

Any update on the verdict, I understand that the ban is implemented as of now however what is the status of the appeal by the industry against the ban ?

[StarrySky]

Originally Posted by Daewood

You have omitted the points which explain the 'safety angle'.
Quoting from points 1 to 10.

The initial points on safety angle is what the petitioner has mentioned in his petition (atleast that is the way I understood it).

1. Alarming rise in heinous crimes like kidnapping, sexual
assault on women and dacoity have impinged upon the right
to life and the right to live in a safe environment which are
within the contours of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
One of the contributory factors to such increase is use of black
films on windows/windshields of four-wheeled vehicles. The
petitioner, as a public spirited person, has invoked the extraordinary
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the
Constitution in the present public interest litigation, praying
for certain directions to stop this menace.

2. The use of black films upon the vehicles gives immunity
to the violators in committing a crime and is used as a tool of
criminality, considerably increasing criminal activities. At
times, heinous crimes like dacoity, rape, murder and even
terrorist acts are committed in or with the aid of vehicles
having black films pasted on the side windows and on the
screens of the vehicles. It is stated that because of nonobservance
of the norms, regulations and guidelines relating
to the specifications for the front and rear windscreens and
the side windows of the vehicles, the offenders can move
undetected in such vehicles and commit crimes without
hesitation.

5. The use of black films also prevents the traffic police from
seeing the activity in the car and communicating with the
driver of the vehicle. The petitioner also cites that the number
of fatal accidents of vehicles having black films is much higher
in India than in other parts of the world.

Also note that the point about the "use of black films also prevents the traffic police from seeing the activity in the car" seems to be supported by various police departments, as per point 8 which I am now quoting in full.

The part about usage of sunfilms in other parts of the world also seems to have come from the petitioner's claims.

8. The petitioner claims to have received various replies
from the police department of different States like Tamil Nadu,
West Bengal, Delhi and Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi.
On the basis of the replies received under the provisions of the
Right to Information Act, 2005, copies of which have been
annexed to the writ petition, it is averred that these authorities
are of the unanimous opinion that black films should be
banned. Black filmed glasses help in commission of crime as
well as hiding the criminals even during vehicle checks at
‘Naka’ points. Non-availability of electronic devices to measure
violations and lack of police force to enforce the Rules are also
apparent from these replies. 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.

Please also note from the above that the court has also been provided with replies from some state governments and central government which agree with the petitioner's claims on the safety aspects. So what is the court supposed to do?

The other point is that the decision to ban sunfilms is based on what is specified (and not specified) in the CMVR as it stands now. The court has banned sunfilms because it is not specifically allowed in CMVR, and not because it is a safety threat. Please also note that the court has declined the prayer to have 100% VLT since the CMVR already states the minimum acceptable VLT %.

[scopriobharath]

Originally Posted by Alive2Drive

Hi Guys,

Any update on the verdict, I understand that the ban is implemented as of now however what is the status of the appeal by the industry against the ban ?

Originally Posted by StarrySky

The initial points on safety angle is what the petitioner has mentioned in his petition (atleast that is the way I understood it).

Yes ! The Ban stays and is hear to stay. Summer is over (alost) so dont expect any counter-petition before March 2013. The court has anyway turned down the counter petition.

[naveen.raju]

Originally Posted by mannubhai

======
=======
Naveen, the ruling is clear that you CANNOT have any film in the car.

Think even the cops are confused. When I was caught, the cop said "NO FILMS". Yesterday when my friend was caught the cop said "LIGHT FILMS ALLOWED". I think in Blore, there was this confusion. I know that the rule clearly mentions "no films". But then why this wrong information from the cops?

I think they are busy trying to extract the max from common people.

[Daewood]

Originally Posted by StarrySky

The initial points on safety angle is what the petitioner has mentioned in his petition (atleast that is the way I understood it).

Yes, the petitioner has mentioned them and the court has accepted them, instead of rejecting that theory, and has quoted the CMVR 100 rule as justification for granting a part of his pleading.
He asked for 100% visibility an got 70% visibility for front and 50% for sides. But the problem is none of the cars below 25L come with 50% visibility on the sides and hence the consumer was using the aid of sunfilms to get the full benefits of the CMVR 100 rule. The court has ruled out that possibility now.

In effect it's a huge opportunity for car makers to introduce a new variant with 50% tinted glass and rake in some extra moolah.

[sgiitk]

Slightly OT. Finally they started enforcement in Kanpur yesterday.

[one-77]

Originally Posted by Sedate

I now know what Bhagat Singh and Gandhi felt during British rule. My loved ones seems should travel with fully covered clothing(even face?) to avoid the indecent looks at the traffic signals. They felt comfortable as at least there is some layer of visibility blocking with sun films! As they say "God- why you made me look beautiful!"

I now know what business people felt when GAAR was thought of. I now know how Sistema and Telenor(they guys who were not part of bribery/any fraud and later bought stake in Syam and Unitech telcos) felt after 2G case. You invest your hard earned money and one day the court tells you - "The interpretation of law makes you a criminal -You will now be hanged at town gate- You could have followed the law earlier, but now its illegal! You the criminal ! "

On a personal level, I wont run business in a country like this, even if it is my home land.

This sun film ban is very much an encroachment on my personal freedom and liberty. I searched and installed only the 70/50 films from reputed manufacturers(3m and VKool). Now I am that ******* who seems to have violated every law of land! Yes, I am now waiting to be hanged at town gate!

If there is less development in this country, this is the reason. If there is brain-drain from this country, this is the reason!

And I will become part of that brain drain the day, I will get booked for using a film with 70% VLT on front/rear and 50% VLT on sides. Fed up of serving this country - working for its villagers, helping them build libraries, teaching them how to use TPM techniques on farm equipments, improving agriculture with modern equipments and promoting organic farming! After all who cares for one lame *** guy leaving his country - there are 100 million more people in the country and a million is getting born every year!

Now it will be working for some gora sab and earning his dollars - Thank you dear supreme court for blowing sense to me and helping me become rich. After all, only people with big pockets can buy high end cars with inbuilt tints.

Phew!
So driving without sun-films make you feel what Gandhi and Bhagat Singh did under British rule, and that feeling is forcing you to "quit India" for some country where sun films are legal, so you could also serve some "gora saab"?
Though riddled with paradoxes, that was quite novel. I think I must get the films off my cars too. Not that I wish to leave the country, but I would certainly like to feel what Gandhi and Singh did..
Oh, and by the way, I suggest you move to Saudi Arabia. That would satisfy most of your requirements; you can use sun films, no one will see your women, and if you're lucky enough, you might even get employed by some "gora saab"!
Wishing you luck!

[Daewood]

^^ It's these kind of many small irritants, that drive people out of the country for 'better' places. I know of many college mates who left this country unable to 'adjust' with the way things happen here, than for monetary benefits.

[rajeev k]

Originally Posted by naveen.raju

Is it true that light sun films are allowed? My friend was caught yesterday and the cop (SI) told him to go for light films if necessary. He had medium dark ones.

I also fell to the MVD net yesterday at Collectorate traffic signal junction and had to pay fine and was told that soon violators will be produced before the court and vehicle registrations are liable for termination. They even caught a guy who had retained the film only in his quarter window glasses.

Funny part is a guy with a hacksaw blade knife contacted me for film removal.

[StarrySky]

Originally Posted by Daewood

Yes, the petitioner has mentioned them and the court has accepted them, instead of rejecting that theory, and has quoted the CMVR 100 rule as justification for granting a part of his pleading.

The "theory" has been supported by various police departments and union home department, as is clearly mentioned in the judgement. So then, why should the court reject the theory?

Originally Posted by Daewood

He asked for 100% visibility an got 70% visibility for front and 50% for sides.

He didn't "get" 70% visibility. 70%/50% was already in the rules. His prayer for 100% VLT was rejected since the rule allows 70% and the court refused to change that.

Originally Posted by Daewood

But the problem is none of the cars below 25L come with 50% visibility on the sides and hence the consumer was using the aid of sunfilms to get the full benefits of the CMVR 100 rule. The court has ruled out that possibility now.

As per the judgement, the CMVR 100 rule states that the visibility of the glass shall be minimum X% during manufacture and shall be maintained as such. That is the visibility shall be maintained in the same condition as when the glass was manufactured. Thus, in the court's interpretation, using sunfilms was never legal. In fact, the judgement also quotes another Supreme Court judgement from as far back as 1998, where the use of black films was prohibited, i.e., the judgement did not turn something that was legal into illegal "overnight" as some members have posted.

[Sedate]

Originally Posted by one-77

Phew!
So driving without sun-films make you feel what Gandhi and Bhagat Singh did under British rule, and that feeling is forcing you to "quit India" for some country where sun films are legal, so you could also serve some "gora saab"?
Though riddled with paradoxes, that was quite novel. I think I must get the films off my cars too. Not that I wish to leave the country, but I would certainly like to feel what Gandhi and Singh did..
Oh, and by the way, I suggest you move to Saudi Arabia. That would satisfy most of your requirements; you can use sun films, no one will see your women, and if you're lucky enough, you might even get employed by some "gora saab"!
Wishing you luck!

It is not driving without sunfilm that makes me feel like BhagatSingh or Gandhi - It is the kind of rules and rulings!

Love Saudi Arabia - Atleast they have a single ruler or strong goveranace there! It is not like, one rule today and change in rule tomorrow. They have clearly set rules and people follow rules.

Here instead of obeying spirit of the law, we are going after "verbal definition" and "redefinition".
These retroactive redefinitions are making me sick! Yes, but its not quit india, it "quit the bad indian governance". Anyways thank alot.

[Daewood]

Originally Posted by StarrySky

As per the judgement, the CMVR 100 rule states that the visibility of the glass shall be minimum X% during manufacture and shall be maintained as such. That is the visibility shall be maintained in the same condition as when the glass was manufactured. Thus, in the court's interpretation, using sunfilms was never legal.

The big difference between mine and your(and the court's) interpretation is the word 'manufacture' which you've inserted, while i'm asking to stick to the original word "maintain", of Rule 100 part(2) of CMVR.

The glass of the windscreen and rear window of every motor vehicle shall be such and shall be maintained in such a condition that the visual transmission of light is not less than 70%. The glasses used for side windows are such and shall be maintained in such condition that the visual transmission of light is not less than 50%, and shall conform to Indian Standards

[StarrySky]

Originally Posted by Daewood

The big difference between mine and your(and the court's) interpretation is the word 'manufacture' which you've inserted, while i'm asking to stick to the original word "maintain", of Rule 100 part(2) of CMVR.

I didn't insert any words, it's already there in the CMVR.

100. Safety glass.—(1) The glass of windscreens and the windows of every motor vehicle 188[other than agricultural tractors] shall be of safety glass:

Explanation.—For the purpose of this rule,—
(i) "safety glass" means glass 190[conforming to the specifications of the Bureau of Indian Standards or any International Standards [* * *]] and so manufactured or treated that if fractured, it does not fly or break into fragments capable of causing severe cuts;

CMVR further states:

192[(2) The glass of the windscreen and rear window of every motor vehicle shall be such and shall be maintained in such a condition that the visual transmission of light is not less than 70%. The glasses used for side windows are such and shall be maintained in such condition that the visual transmission of light is not less than 50%, and shall conform to Indian Standards.

The court has also explained it's interpretation further in the 2nd judgement (on the review petition):

15. Equally, without substance and merit is the submission that the expression 'maintained' used in Rule 100 would imply that subsequent to manufacturing, the car can be maintained by use of films with requisite VLT of 70 per cent and 50 per cent respectively. In the judgment, after discussing the scheme of the Act, the Rules framed thereunder and Rule 100 read in conjunction with Indian Standard No.2553 Part II of 1992, this court took the view that the Rule does not permit use of any other material except the safety glass 'manufactured as per the requirements of law'. Rule 100 categorically states that 'safety glass' is the glass which is to be manufactured as per the specification and requirements of explanation to Rule 100(1). It is only the safety glasses alone that can be used by the manufacturer of the vehicle. The requisite VLT has to be 70 per cent and 50 per cent of the screen and side windows respectively, without external aid of any kind of material, including the films pasted on the safety glasses. The use of film on the glass would change the very concept and requirements of safety glass in accordance with law. The expression 'maintained' has to be construed to say that, what is required to be manufactured in accordance with law should be continued to be maintained as such.

[rajeev k]

^^^ Some hot discussions up there.
But the fact remains that the film removal spree will be over after some time and the filming will start afresh. The cycle repeats.
This had happened earlier, if I am remembering rightly.