[PatchyBoy]

In spite of thinking of everything and specifying everything in great details, I guess the rules / specifications get victimized by the nuances of the English language.

The wording "dark glasses/sun films" in any of the rules posted by SupremeBaleno (#2504) can be interpreted as:

1. Dark Glasses or Dark Sun films - meaning light sun films are allowed
OR
2. Dark Glasses or ANY Sun Films - meaning only light glasses are allowed. No Sun Film

Sigh!!!!

Rajan

[supremeBaleno]

^^^ IMO it is as simple as the way it is written - dark-glasses or sun-films not allowed.
So, it would be illegal to put say dark sun-ban glass in lieu of the stock glasses or to paste sun-film on the stock glasses.

But yeah, clarity never hurt anyone.

[Daewood]

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

They all seem to be referring CMVR that you refer to and if so I doubt there is anything wrong in what the SC upheld.

Attaching the 175 page CMVR rules. Nowhere else will you find anything about VLT, other than this in page 83(Rule 100 part 2), which i posted a few pages back also.
"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"

[supremeBaleno]

^^^Thanks for putting up the whole doc.
In the doc, there is indeed no mention of sun-film. So, wonder how each and every state has interpreted the rule to mean that sun-film is not allowed and also prescribed penalty for the offense of putting sun-film. Or, is it that the rule has to interpreted according to what safety-glass means under the relevant BIS section mentioned in the doc and thus the glass provided by manufacturer should be meeting the VLT prescribed ? And when read with the section about alterations to the vehicle, the sun-film would be treated as an alteration and which could be why all states ban it ?

[Daewood]

^^^
Actually there was on old Supreme court or High Court verdict in the last decade which intrepreted the same CMVR 100 rule as, sunfilms which didn't alter VLT beyond the prescribed limit to be legal. This time it's gone against any films.
IMO the culprit is the year in which the CMVR was modified. Way back in 1992 airconditioned cars were a rarity and hence not much thought was given to sunfilms or tinted glasses. It was only in 1999 when Hyundai launched the Santro with AC in even the basic variant, ACs started becoming a common thing.

[simplynitin]

Millions of people inconvenienced and Million of rupees down the drain but the crimes have not stopped.

Another crime in car

[2cents]

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

^^^Thanks for putting up the whole doc.
In the doc, there is indeed no mention of sun-film. So, wonder how each and every state has interpreted the rule to mean that sun-film is not allowed and also prescribed penalty for the offense of putting sun-film. Or, is it that the rule has to interpreted according to what safety-glass means under the relevant BIS section mentioned in the doc and thus the glass provided by manufacturer should be meeting the VLT prescribed ? And when read with the section about alterations to the vehicle, the sun-film would be treated as an alteration and which could be why all states ban it ?

To my understanding no state wants to ban it, or even fine vehicle owners. Else, they would've pounced on this opportunity to mint money, as they normally do. If at all they are doing something, it is only reluctantly, not wanting to offend the verdict and face contempt action. In fact the DGP of a state went to the extent of saying they they won't fine vehicles or remove sunfilms, and then backtracked after it started receiving excessive media attention. Except for a few cities in a few states others seem to be not following up on this seriously.

[PatchyBoy]

The language is the whole problem, as I see it.

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%.

Now, how we see this is - The minimum VLT of front and rear should be 70%. We can paste films on these glasses as long as the minimum is still met.

How the SC chose to interpret the same statement is

On the plain reading of the Rule, it is clear that car must have safety glass having VLT at the time of manufacturing 70 per cent for windscreen and 50 per cent for side windows. It should be so maintained in that condition thereafter. In other words, the Rule not impliedly, but specifically, prohibits alteration of such VLT by any means subsequent to its manufacturing. How and what will be a “safety glass” has been explained in Explanation to Rule 100. The Explanation while defining ‘laminated safety glass’ makes it clear that two or more pieces of glass held together by an intervening layers of plastic materials so that the glass is held together in the event of impact. The Rule and the explanation do not contemplate or give any leeway to the manufacturer or user of the vehicle to, in any manner, tamper with the VLT.
The Rule and the IS only specify the VLT of the glass itself.

To me both interpretations sound correct and valid. However, the enforcers are not going to think that way.

Most of this could have been avoided if the minimum VLT for the side windows was also 70%. Unfortunately, it is 50%. The manufacturer fits a 87% VLT glass to cut costs, some of us put films that reduce the VLT to ~60%, some others put films that reduce it to 30%. Someone felt safe to commit crimes behind the darkness of 30%, someone else decided to file a PIL, the SC interpreted as quoted above and here we are.

Rajan

[shankar.balan]

Originally Posted by Daewood

Anything behind the B pillar is not their priority. Another thing which i noticed was on the emphasis of visibility, for the driver from inside the car to clearly see what's on the outside, rather than the misplaced priority of Indian authorities on visibilty from outside the car to see what's inside.
Funny that the SC verdict chose not to quote rules prevalent in these developed and forward thinking nations, but chose to quote rules from 'bottom of the rung' nations like Uganda, Belarus, Pakistan & Afghanistan.

Can you expect much else from the ancient mariner babus of our country? Our mediocrity shines through alright, if these are the types of benchmarks that we are using! Hopeless!

[msdivy]

Originally Posted by simplynitin

Millions of people inconvenienced and Million of rupees down the drain but the crimes have not stopped.

Another crime in car

The car in the picture doesn't have any sun film at all. And the crime happened between 11PM & 4AM in a deserted location. What is Mr Avishek Goenka's solution for this?

[Parthasarathig]

Originally Posted by msdivy

The car in the picture doesn't have any sun film at all. And the crime happened between 11PM & 4AM in a deserted location. What is Mr Avishek Goenka's solution for this?

These crimes are never going to stop. They are based on a notion of opportunity aka opportunistic crimes. The logic is even if someone runs naked in a crowded marketplace noone is going to do such crime on that person, but if a fully clothed person is walking on a desolate stretch of road chances of sexual crimes are more.
Now whether the car has sunfilm or no sunfilm etc, if the rapist spots a victim he'll jump right at the chance he gets. But whatever it is the blanket ban on sunfilm has failed to uplift the safety of women and it is sad that another woman had to fall victim to a man's sexual urges. When will we have capital punishment in this country?! It'd deter criminals more effectively, than ban on sunfilms.

[PatchyBoy]

One man's pain another's gain

Check this out

KLF Nirmal
‎0% Sun Film. 100% Purity.
Spot the Nirmal mobile car around town and get your sun film removed for free.
Nirmal Clear coconut hair oil. 100% transparency. 100% purity.

Not sure if I should or

Rajan

[condor]

Almost all Long distance /tourist buses and contract carriages sport dark windows. How will the cops / RTO get these rectified ?

[rohan_iitr]

Originally Posted by condor

Almost all Long distance /tourist buses and contract carriages sport dark windows. How will the cops / RTO get these rectified ?

The same way as they do for private cars. Fine the driver and peel off the sun films.

Why should bus drivers get any special treatment ? The law is the same for all motor vehicles.

Rohan

[condor]

@Rohan, many of these vehicles dont have additional tints, but have extra dark-tint glass itself.