[StarrySky]

Originally Posted by rajeev k

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 right.

The recent Supreme Court judgement refers to another judgement from 1998 which banned the use of black films. And, I remember that long back we had removed sunfilms from our car, when due to some reason cops had started penalising cars with films. Maybe the 1998 judgement referred to by the Supreme Court was the trigger for that.

[rajeev k]

There is scope for another one too though slightly off topic. Almost during that period around the late 80s or early 90s there were stringent checks by cops on the number plate letter sizes and for some period thereafter all vehicles were strictly following that sizes as per law. Similar checks are now due as lot of font styles are in vogue now.

[thealtoman]

well the situation is getting pretty serious. my colleague got caught today and he was asked to park inside a ground with other such vehicles where it seems the rto itself had arranged some guys to remove the sun film. he also mentioned that the job they did was really horrible and they did not remove the glue form the window which resembles scratch marks.
the question is how long such strict action will be enforced.

[Daewood]

Originally Posted by StarrySky

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

Rule (1) under section 'Safety Glass' says what is safety glass and how it has to be manufactured, using lamination so that glass pieces don't fly in the event of a crash and also about the ISI standards.
Rule(2)speaks about maintaining the glass, and talks about how much percentage it can deteriorate in visibility, before being held illegal.

You and the court are clubbing together two separate topics and claiming both are one and the same. The reason the court is able to justify it's interpretation, is the absence of the word 'owner' in rule(2) which is regarding maintenance and in true spirit means the current owner of the vehicle.

[StarrySky]

Originally Posted by Daewood

Rule(2)speaks about maintaining the glass, and talks about how much percentage it can deteriorate in visibility, before being held illegal.

That is your interpretation. Please show me where the CMVR rule states explicitly that it is about "percentage deterioration" of "glass". Let me guess - nowhere.

This is precisely the reason why the court said in the first judgement:

What is permitted has been specifically provided for and what has not been specifically stated would obviously be deemed to have been excluded from these Rules. It would neither be permissible nor possible for the Court to read into these statutory provisions, what is not specifically provided for.

[Daewood]

Originally Posted by StarrySky

Please show me where the CMVR rule states explicitly that it is about "percentage deterioration" of "glass". Let me guess - nowhere.

Quoting the rule for the umpteenth time.

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

Isn't it as simple as saying, "make sure that the oil level doesn't go below 'X' levels".

[rajoy123]

Hey naveen bhai, I was caught today in Kaloor, kochi, and i had to pay 100 rupees as the fine amount. The rule has been seriously enforced in Kochi, and the police seem to be in no mood for letting anyone go with a warning, even the light-films!

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.

[k149in]

Hope many had a chance to look at this news, Crackdown on sunfilm yields one crore in Chennai:

The Hindu : Cities / Chennai : Crackdown on sun film yields Rs. 1 cr

[StarrySky]

Originally Posted by Daewood

Quoting the rule for the umpteenth time.Isn't it as simple as saying, "make sure that the oil level doesn't go below 'X' levels".

Oil level is a bad example, since oil is a cosumable.

I will agree, and I believe you will too, that the term "maintain" in the rules is ambiguous. You have taken it to mean that it is permissible to do anything to the glass (like sticking film) as long as you "maintain" the 70% minimum VLT. The court has taken it to mean that the glass should be manufactured such that minimum VLT is 70% and shall be "maintained" in the condition that it was manufactured.

The problem is that whatever you have interpreted from the rule is not explicitly stated in the rules. Problem with allowing what is not stated in the rules is that there will be many different interpretations.

I will give you a real example related to sunfilm. I have seen many cars with really dark (maybe 20% VLT) sunfilms on the side windows, except a small patch left un-filmed through which the driver can clearly see the ORVM. Now, the un-filmed patch area may give 100% VLT. So can the driver argue that the rule does not say that there should be minimum 50% VLT for the "whole area" of the glass, so he is within the rules?

[Raccoon]

Originally Posted by k149in

Hope many had a chance to look at this news, Crackdown on sunfilm yields one crore in Chennai:

The Hindu : Cities / Chennai : Crackdown on sun film yields Rs. 1 cr

This is nothing but loot, harassment and destruction of property by the state, thanks to the courts. Disgusting.

If this is the official figure, marks for guessing how much the cops would have collected as bribes for letting many off the hook.

[supremeBaleno]

Originally Posted by k149in

Hope many had a chance to look at this news, Crackdown on sunfilm yields one crore in Chennai

Actually given the low fine amount (Rs100 or so) for the violation of having sun-film on cars, the ROI is abysmally low for the effort put in by the cops. It is more lucrative and worth their time to catch folks without helmets, where the fine is higher.

[scopriobharath]

I Voted "I will ground my car and wait & watch for the order to change " but I finally decided to remove my Sun-film as i lost all hope.

I have used the film for 5.5 years and anyway got it free with the car (Dealer's compliments). I will be removing it in a day or 2. I am really frustrated but I think we, middle class have to always bow.

- At least the court could have permitted a 90% visibility film.

[infotech58]

i came to my hometown (jalandhar, punjab) this Monday and what a difference i see on the roads, it has been four days and around 300 kms of roaming around in punjab and i am yet to see a heavily tinted car (while every second car had jet black tints when i visited last in Feb 2012); upon inquiring about this change, i am told that it is the result of strict action by RTO.

[bigron]

@ infotech - You right. The Punjab Govt , has issued strict orders to remove tints from all cars with immediate effect. This ofcourse does not extend to any Government " machinery " .

[naveen.raju]

Originally Posted by rajoy123

Hey naveen bhai, I was caught today in Kaloor, kochi, and i had to pay 100 rupees as the fine amount. The rule has been seriously enforced in Kochi, and the police seem to be in no mood for letting anyone go with a warning, even the light-films!

Yes, they have started their serious drive this week. Many of my friends were caught too. Hope light films will be allowed in the future.