[msdivy]

Originally Posted by PatchyBoy

While theoretically applying 70% VLT film on 90% VLT side window would result in 63% VLT, which is more than the prescribed 50%, the learned judges of SC have ruled it illegal, as the CMV rule does not provide for any after market alteration of VLT by the owners of the automobiles.

In view of this, I do not believe it is prudent to question the SC ruling.

Right, reading the court verdict, its apparent that working withing CMV Rules framework, Supreme Court couldn't have given any other verdict.

SC could have extended the definition of glass as glass+film and then apply VLT limits. But this would have seen a judgement *favoring* sun-film manufacturers, which is unnecessary. Also glass+film limit would be difficult to implement since different manufacture give different tints and there would be no generic VLT% sun film that would apply to all cars.

So fighting this verdict will be very difficult.

Possibly what sun film manufacturers can do is to file a petition to consider extending definition of 'glass' to 'glass+film' in CMV rules and offer a solution so that 'glass+film' VLT is withing limits as in CMV rules.

Sun film is a trivial issue. If every trivial issue is to be implemented strictly, then life starts to be very difficult. Personally I feel, since sun-film is non-obtrusive accessory, there should be no restriction on VLT. Everybody must decide which film is best for them. Just like music system, which is also a non-obtrusive and there is no rule what music system anybody can install.

Note that the VLT rule was made in 1989. Its has come to haunt in 2012. Right now Parliament is busy drafting Internet laws. Not sure when or who will be haunted by the laws made today.

I wish there was a mechanism/forum to hear our area MLA/MP's views on CMV rule, Internet law, etc. and give our opinion.

[simplyself]

The SC had only ruled under existing CMVR as it did not provide for any after-market alteration of VLT.. If there is an amendment in it, then applying film could become legal, within prescribed limits.

Cutting of the light/heat is not the only important function. Now a days, it has become essential to cut off voyeurs.

[motorworks]

Unfortunately I had spent about 12k on sunfilms {7k for the front windsheild and 5 for the sides /rear} about 45 days ago on my new car. Feel a bit frustrated that so much of money is going to go down the drain! But I have decided to keep them on for some more time, not that I want to be a law breaker, but I think the this implementation will fade away in the near future. i have installed very light sunfilms {LT. charcoal} and I dont think it is "Black". Having spent 12k on these, I would want to take the risk of seeing what the penalty is going to be. You see, in a country where helmets / seat belts are not compulsory in most of the states, why do we have to have such a weird rule? Agreed dark tints might have helped some criminal proceedings, but is banning all sunfilms the only solution? Why can't they just ban the sheer dark ones, factor in some way to have a legal parameter?
I dont want to sound like a irresponsible Citizen, but I pay my taxes and abide all the laws of the land, so why should I be penalized in unjust way?
VVIPS can still have sunfilms and god knows how much of billions these guys have looted out of the country in the last 10 years!
What if some one is killed / raped in car that has dark sunfilms and the person who did it is well connected with the politicians? Well, he will go scot free! So rather than just accepting what has been thrust up on us, i suggest we dont take things lying down.

[girishglg]

Originally Posted by arun_josie

“We have decided to extend the deadline as the public and several organisations have requested us to stretch the deadline to June 5,” said City Police CommissionerB G Jyothiprakash Mirji, on Thursday.

After June 5, a fine of Rs 300 will be slapped on drivers for violating the rule. Motorists will have to cough up Rs 500 for committing the offence a second time. If the act is repeated for the third time, the police will seize the vehicle.

If one looks closely, the police have upped the fine slabs from-

Rs.100 - Rs.300 - seizure to

Rs.300 - Rs.500 - seizure

Now this is their way of saying-

We are giving you extended time, so better do the needful or fill our coffers with some heafty fines.

Looks like there is only one way forward now - remove the films!

Unless there is some kind of stay order by the 5th (highly unlikely) till a new rule is brought in place!

[xotiq]

Originally Posted by motorworks

Unfortunately I had spent about 12k on sunfilms {7k for the front windsheild and 5 for the sides /rear} about 45 days ago on my new car. Feel a bit frustrated that so much of money is going to go down the drain! But I have decided to keep them on for some more time, not that I want to be a law breaker, but I think the this implementation will fade away in the near future. (...)So rather than just accepting what has been thrust up on us, i suggest we dont take things lying down.

While i understand your predicament, selectively banning tints of various hues may not be practical. A stay from the H'nble Supreme Court can sure spread some cheer!

Note from Team-BHP Support Team: Please do not quote a large post in its entirety. It makes reading difficult for our mobile/small-screen users.

[DRIVE_ADDICT]

Originally Posted by intothewild

MODS, if you feel this is off-topic, please have it removed.Now, who am I?
.
.
.
But, I, do have paid my tax dues, was excited when I could get my first voter ID though disappointed when it arrived with a very poor photo and wrong data, went and voted in all the elections, drive responsibly on the roads, feel utterly cheated after paying exorbitant tolls, crawl over bad roads and the intense senseless road traffic.

Your post is simply superb and voice out exactly what i feel.
If we don't vote its our fault, if we are driving irresponsibly, again its our fault. If we are one among this violators ofcourse we don't have the rights to put our demands to the governing bodies.
But a law abiding person can raise his demand/thoughts over the governing bodies, when they made some so called 'rule' which he finds unreasonable.

[supremeBaleno]

Originally Posted by fusion123

Sorry for being little OT. But in the last many posts, I have seen that majority of fellow bhpians are from Bangalore who have complained of severe heat and weather conditions due to which they needed Sun Films. In my previous many visits to Bangalore, have always encountered good weather, even in summers when you compare it with dry heat of Delhi or humidity in Chennai.

Not at all OT since one concern is about heat penetration into the car. Hot weather in Blore ? Then in Chennai, we are literally in the frying pan.

Originally Posted by intothewild

This may be OT, but have been reading a few posts (do not want to name it) in the thread that has termed voicing a honest opinion in an open forum as “contempt of court”

I did mention about contempt-of-court, so maybe you are referring to me. So let me clarify - voicing opinion against a law is not wrong. But referring to judges as incompetent, suggesting them being in collusion with other parties etc can land a person in trouble. It was a cautionary note, since it can have serious implications not only for the poster, but they could even drag the forum in - remember the issue with Google/Facebook etc ? I am not a lawyer and it was a friendly advice - take it or ignore it - no issues. Some sample posts that made me mention that are quoted below :

Originally Posted by sammycoolster

I am sorry to use very strong words but this is a big joke. I have seen this time and again, that judges sometimes are incompetent when technical matters like these come up

To say judges are incompetent can be avoided.

Originally Posted by download2live

1. A dummy for industry files a PIL.
2. SC passes an order, at peak of summer, just before going for a long leave.
The whole month of June heat to be forced upon the Tax Paying Cattle.
After that the order gets reversed or stayed leading to a bumper harvest for the companies.

The bold/underlined part could be interpreted as judiciary being in collusion with other parties. Not a good thing to suggest this.

Originally Posted by intothewild

Finally, never be worried about the privacy/safety of your wife/kid sitting inside a 100% VLT car while somebody stares from a bike or stationary bus less than a few centimeters away

I never understood this part. In a country where staring is as common a thing as ice in Alaska, what is the whole deal about this ? OK, a guy on a bike stares at a woman in a car, so what ? After a minute or so, vehicles move on, dont they ? And even if someone stares at a woman and you put film on the car, what about when the woman walks out of the car - she cannot stay in the car for ever right ? Wont she be stared at in malls/colleges/offices, pavement, etc ? Will we cover them all over in sun-film ?

Anyway, I never imagined sun-film is such a serious issue for so many of us. The thread seems to be running on and on...

[DRIVE_ADDICT]

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

To say judges are incompetent can be avoided.

+1 I Accept this. This will make anyone in trouble including the forum.

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

I never understood this part. In a country where staring is as common a thing as ice in Alaska, what is the whole deal about this ? OK, a guy on a bike stares at a woman in a car, so what ? After a minute or so, vehicles move on, dont they ? And even if someone stares at a woman and you put film on the car, what about when the woman walks out of the car - she cannot stay in the car for ever right ? Wont she be stared at in malls/colleges/offices, pavement, etc ? Will we cover them all over in sun-film ?

Anyway, I never imagined sun-film is such a serious issue for so many of us. The thread seems to be running on and on...

Yes we can't stop staring at common places. But sunfilm DO protect soft genders at times. Imagine in some deserted signal at sundays, when a lonely woman driver waits for signal with miscreants in bikes next to her. How many times we watched bikers racing behind cars driven by soft genders. Sun film do protect soft genders to an extent from this type of miscreants.

[supremeBaleno]

^^ A definite possibility, I agree. But atleast she is in a car that is stable (4 wheels), can lock the doors/windows and request police help at nearest signal/outpost/police-station.
Yes, in Chennai atleast you are not very far away from a cop. And believe me they will help, especially if it is women in trouble.

What is more commonly seen (atleast in Chennai) is miscreants riding alongside women on bikes and trying to tease them - the girls get terrified and can end up making mistakes.
The woman in the car is 100times safer than the poor things on bikes, even sans sunfilm.

[intothewild]

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

Not at all OT since one concern is about heat penetration into the car. Hot weather in Blore ? Then in Chennai, we are literally in the frying pan.

I did mention about contempt-of-court, so maybe you are referring to me. So let me clarify - voicing opinion against a law is not wrong. But referring to judges as incompetent, suggesting them being in collusion with other parties etc can land a person in trouble. It was a cautionary note, since it can have serious implications not only for the poster, but they could even drag the forum in - remember the issue with Google/Facebook etc ? I am not a lawyer and it was a friendly advice - take it or ignore it - no issues. Some sample posts that made me mention that are quoted below :

To say judges are incompetent can be avoided.

The bold/underlined part could be interpreted as judiciary being in collusion with other parties. Not a good thing to suggest this.

I never understood this part. In a country where staring is as common a thing as ice in Alaska, what is the whole deal about this ? OK, a guy on a bike stares at a woman in a car, so what ? After a minute or so, vehicles move on, dont they ? And even if someone stares at a woman and you put film on the car, what about when the woman walks out of the car - she cannot stay in the car for ever right ? Wont she be stared at in malls/colleges/offices, pavement, etc ? Will we cover them all over in sun-film ?

Anyway, I never imagined sun-film is such a serious issue for so many of us. The thread seems to be running on and on...

SB, I do agree with you that certain comments about the H'ble Judges can be avoided; but then, it doesn't take away the right of someone to criticize a seemingly hasty judgement. Was there a study conducted on this? There were 3 cases of incidence that happened in a vehicle, but then how much percentage of it contribute to the total crime? Have the police done everything they could have to have prevented the crime?

Regarding the staring part, in no other country where the ruling is in effect to some degree, do bikes/autos/buses come as close to car as in India. In a mall or in an open space, the women atleast have an opportunity to move away from the person who is staring. But, when in a car there are no options; just wait until the signal/traffic clears. I have seen this happening many times.

Again, this ruling is being criticized simply because the police are acting in a way unheard of. What happened to the helmet rule? Who is catching the signal jumpers? Who is catching the rash drivers? If the police had shown atleast some intent in punishing the violators, the roads would be much safer for everyone. Maybe then, if the H'ble courts had brought in the sunfilm ruling, many would have accepted it as a rule of law.

But now, it only seems too obvious that they perceive the private car drivers (over 90% of the intended target) as easy targets to harass and exhort money. So, what happens to car owners who had legal sunfilms (within the prescribed limit) installed? Suddenly, they become law breakers? This is very unfair. Something that has such a far reaching effect has this ruling has to be studied in detailed, affected parties given a choice to voice their opinion and only then see the light of day.

Until then, we will crib. Atleast we have a right for this.

Vijay

[yogeshnaik]

If one observes closely, there is some amount of tint on the glass that is provided by the manufacturer. Level of tint may vary what your manufacturer provides. Rear glass has more tint and is within permissible limits. When enquired about sunfilm removal, I got a reply saying any type of sunfilms needs to be removed.
What I found is the labour charges for sunfilm removal has increased at service outlets (Got a quote of Rs. 450/- at the max), whatever that comes in their mouth!
Bangalore Cops have a drive at Kantheerava Stadium where you can get sunfilms removed. When helmets were made mandatory, many were negative going about it, but the outcome result is better. I feel it is better to obey the rules.

[sumathindra]

I think we are over reacting to this whole situation. Yes it will hurt people who have just spend on the films and have to remove them now.

Privacy is at homes and not on public roads/cars/bikes. Why are we forgetting the fundamental issue here? We just need to drive safely on the roads not thinking about cops trying to catch. It is here that people tend to make mistakes and land up in a situation.

As far as the climate control in a tinted car is concerned, well how many hours do you speand in the car? If we are roadies then we better get used to the sun get some tan!

[asdon]

Originally Posted by sumathindra

I think we are over reacting to this whole situation. Yes it will hurt people who have just spend on the films and have to remove them now.

Privacy is at homes and not on public roads/cars/bikes. Why are we forgetting the fundamental issue here? We just need to drive safely on the roads not thinking about cops trying to catch. It is here that people tend to make mistakes and land up in a situation.

As far as the climate control in a tinted car is concerned, well how many hours do you speand in the car? If we are roadies then we better get used to the sun get some tan!

If you let go the privacy issue, then also one point you will agree, if there is a need to switch on AC, and at a signal you turn off the car, provided you have good quality sun film, some amount of cooling retained inside the car, which is not the case with normal glass, and in a hot afternoon with sun film you could manage your AC at 1 point, but without sunfilm you have to put it on 2/3. I am not concerned about UV etc, cause 70%+ of Indians are facing it everyday, at least we are in a better condition.

[sumathindra]

Originally Posted by asdon

If you let go the privacy issue, then also one point you will agree, if there is a need to switch on AC, and at a signal you turn off the car, provided you have good quality sun film, some amount of cooling retained inside the car, which is not the case with normal glass, and in a hot afternoon with sun film you could manage your AC at 1 point, but without sunfilm you have to put it on 2/3. I am not concerned about UV etc, cause 70%+ of Indians are facing it everyday, at least we are in a better condition.

Apart from car's we also use two wheelers right. The point is we need to come out of our comfert zones. Yes I know there are other areas where the SC needs to intervene and change / impose bans etc. however that is best left to the learned politicians and courts. Change is the only thing thats constant.

[parik_ind]

While I did not want to remove the tints till this evening but went ahead and took them off last night. My reasoning was simple, even if I were to wait till the 19th or now till the 5th of June I would have to eventually remove it. I do drive to Chennai frequently and did not want to face any issues with cops there because I had tints on.

The only ask now is that the cops are vigilant and enforce the law. It should not happen that a few people continue to drive with their tints on because they managed to bribe someone (Too much to ask?).

There should also some mechanism to ensure that the rules are not changed frequently because we will be at the receiving end. They did exactly this when the rules regarding the number plates changed. First they said that all number plates should have characters of a certain size, once most people had complied they went ahead and changed the colour of the plates itself.

Parik