[Alive2Drive]

I think, the supereme court should allow 70% VLT films across the country. any film with less visibility than 70% should be penalized. I think that anyone can visually spot the difference between a 70VLT film and a 35VLT/20VLT.

[lohithrao]

Any updates on review petition?

I was fined for the films last week, so finally decided to let it go. removed the films by DIY method, i see many cars have removed the films so far...

[apachelongbow]

Just for my understanding. Are there any films which are 100% transparent but stop ultraviolet and infrared light rays? If these are available, then pasting them on car glasses would substantially cut down on the biggest cause of heat and sunburns i.e. ultraviolet and infrared radiation.

[condor]

Lohith, how dark were your films ? Was this in MLR ?

[lohithrao]

Not 100% but yes 70%, can use the films which ar meant for front WS, 3M's doesnt even have any color but these will be very expensive.

Originally Posted by apachelongbow

Just for my understanding. Are there any films which are 100% transparent ...

Well definitely not dark, while i removing i realised that compared to the glass without film hardly you could make out the any difference.

yes it was in mangalore...

Originally Posted by condor

Lohith, how dark were your films ? Was this in MLR ?

[deadman]

Actually in mangalore, udupi and in manipal car owner frustrated by police torture. I personaly seen police making money everywhere in 3 city by stopping tinted cars. For police it's like a golden opportunity to make money.

[samarjitdhar]

With the previous thread closed I guess this one is the most appropriate place to post this. There might be still some hope to reverse the not so well thought out decision .

Ban on tint films in vehicles: SC to hear review petitions on July 19 - The Times of India

Quoting some statements which should be solid arguments for implementing the 70/50 rule already in CMVR.

Advocate Padma Prasad Hegde, who filed the application, told TOI that the apex court banned tint films on the basis of a PIL filed by Avishek Goenka without hearing other parties involved. There are lakhs of consumers and car owners who use these films. They were not heard at the time of passing the order. The matter should have been given wide publicity before passing the order,'' he said.

Hegde noted that denying application of tint film, where the VLT between the manufactured glass and tint film is same, is unreasonable. Manufactured glass with tint is expensive and not all can afford it,'' he contended.

Generally IMO in such important cases, all affected parties should be notified and made party to the case which was not done for some bizarre reason. Only when arguments from all sides had been heard out then an informed decision for or against can be taken. Beats me why this was not done in the first place and the original petitioner got away smiling like a Cheshire cat.

[Sedate]

I think the case was against "Union of India"! So the moment we say the people where not addressed then from legal parlance, it doesn't look right. It is said and believed that the government represents the people.

Did any one had a chance to get the response of the "Union of India" for the PIL filed ? It should have something funny in it which made the judge pass case against "Union of India" a.ka. Govt a.k.a People of India. :(

[rameshnanda]

The review petition will be taken for hearing today.

Ban on tint films in vehicles: SC to hear review petitions on July 19 - Times Of India

[Alive2Drive]

Eagerly Awating the verdict ! I hope the court is considerate about the people who genuinely install films to protect themselves from Solar and UV radiations.

[Sedate]

As per news paper report(Malayala Manorama) - Kerala Police bought 34 new VLT meters!

It is to be distributed through out the state. Photos of vehicle is taken on the spot if violation is noted.

[bkishore_77]

I believe there is no respite yet based on this news article
Don't spare the rich, remove black films from cars: SC

[Sunilrj]

UPDATE: Supreme Court reserves judgment on the ban of tint films in four-wheelers

The division bench of the Supreme Court on Thursday reserved judgment pertaining to the ban on use of the tint films on four wheelers, after hearing five impleading applications requesting modification of the judgment.

While three impleading applications were by the manufacturers and dealers, one each was filed by the Cancer Patients Association and Mangalore-based Car Owners and Consumers' Association (COCA).

Advocate PP Hegde argued before the bench, that had Justices A K Patnaik and Swatanter Kumar, that tint films which conform the visual light transmission (VLT) limit prescribed in the Motor Vehicle Act should be allowed as only luxury class cars came with factory-fitted tinted glass. If a consumer wants tinted glass, the cost of replacing the glass will be an expensive proposition costing close to Rs 30,000. If the consumer has a choice to apply tint film, it would be an inexpensive solution,'' he argued.

Representing the manufactures and dealers senior Counsel Soli Sorabjee argued the manufacturers have invested huge funds in setting up the manufacturing facility and dealerships and banning tint films outright would affect the livelihood of lakhs of persons.

Additional Solicitor General Gourav Banerjee for the centre argued the traffic police were not equipped with sufficient luxometers to check the VLT limit so implementation would be a problem at the ground level and also there was a chance of misuse if the tint films were allowed to be used. Counsel for the Cancer Patients Association argued that UV rays cause harmful effect and tint films were required for protection.

The Court in April this year banned use of tinted films of any density or darkness based on a PIL filed by Avishek Goenka, who complained that cars with black film on window panes were being increasingly used for crimes, including sexual assault of women.

[SedatedDrive]

1. "“We found that rules were not being followed. We have only interpreted the rules. We have said that law permits glass and nothing else. Your films may be great, but how can we change the rules,” the bench remarked."
MO: I have read the CMVR and cannot find the any relevant section where the law specifically bans or makes "other materials" impermissible. The CMVR only specifies legal VLT for glass. For other materials to be banned, it must first acknowledge the existence of such and specify the same on paper. The CMVR law is about visibility for drivers from within and not visibility of occupants from outside. A non-relevant law cannot be interpreted to negate the incompetence and/or inability of police in an accident investigation.

2. "Additional Solicitor General Gourav Banerjee for the centre argued the traffic police were not equipped with sufficient luxometers to check the VLT limit so implementation would be a problem at the ground level and also there was a chance of misuse if the tint films were allowed to be used."
MO: If implementation to enforce legal films is a problem for the Government, then how are they going to enforce legal window glasses? They can not! Hence the Government should get sufficient luxometers and then it would be in a position to enforce legal VLT, films or no films.

Bottom line:
If SC does not reverse its total ban on Sun Films, irrespective of CMVR specified VLT, then there is one last option for citizens - approach the Union Government of India to modify the law to allow Sun films of legal VLT.

[Abhinav.Daos]

Any update on yesterdays hearing?