[aqualeo2040]

Ok. I need help from logical & scientific brains here.

The one Mr Avishek Goenka The Great had requested for vehicles with 100% VLT.

My understanding of 100% VLT is that the light intensity on either sides of the glass should be equal, which means that the glass would be almost invisible because visibility is based on the factor of reflection.

has anyone other than 'Q' of James Bond fame have actually come up with a product with 100% VLT?

Does this not suffice to declare the petitioner clinically insane?

Any glass will have less than 100% VLT (thats what my small pea brain believes).

When our Hon'ble Judges rejected this claim, it was not on the basis of pure logic & science but based on this :

"Rule 100 of the Rules is a valid piece of legislation and is on the statute book.

Once such provision exists, this Court cannot issue directions
contrary to the provision of law. Thus, we decline to grant

this prayer to the petitioner."

Now I know what they say about common sense is 100% true.

[aerohit]

Supreme court should pass law against black smoke, loud horns, unsafe vehicles instead.

[girishglg]

Originally Posted by coolclouds

Now, Bangalore Traffic Police is clear on the issue. Source

Any kind of film on glasses of vehicles will be peeled off

"Most people seem to believe that sunscreen films within the permissible limits,provided by authorised car dealers,are allowed.But traffic police clearly say any film pasted,however thin and clear,will be removed."

Originally Posted by Speed Pujari

The more I read more I get confused.
TOI and other newspaper has two paragraphs. One says remove black tints, second para says remove all kind of tints.

Atleast the Bangalore police is very clear about themselves.

ANY and ALL aftermarket films need to be or will be peeled off.

Thats an clear and easy instruction for them to follow at least

[srishiva]

The interesting thing is most govt vehicles have films with tints. I saw a SX4 that had complete dark tints on rear windows and rear glass with a little lighter shade on front windows. Also, I see a top cop's Innova with dark tints leaving from BTM layout almost everyday.
Shouldn't they be doing it first?

[brilliantlights]

I can understand that a lot of people see an enormous amount of discomfort in complete removal of sunfilms. I too can feel the heat (literally, as we know :-), its summer time!) of this decision. I wish it maintained a restriction on the VLT.

Having said the above here is the other thoughts to the same issue keeping aside the personal inconvenience:

1. The laws have existed for a long time with VLT limit restrictions. However the cops have not exercised it. There has been a clearly visible ignorance.
The new decision now leaves no room for speculation by saying no sun films are allowed.

2. Several instances have been quoted in the courts of several crimes being committed in cars with dark tints. Now there may be a million car owners with car tints and may be a fraction only use the cars for criminal purposes but I think it is wise for the remaining million to go by this decision to ensure the country is safer specially for women. It is not a complete solution but definitely a great contribution.

3. Dark tints do serve as an easy hide-away for people inside, identities not being revealed by any facial lookup as that becomes impossible even for cops and every car with a dark tint cannot be given a chase to see all is well. Some of these cars have been involved in heinous crimes that could have had higher chances of prevention if all occupants of the car were visible if there were no dark tints.

This decision is tough but needed as the community has shown an indifference to such incidents - most people, not all, have a tendency to walk away from a scene of crime than report it or prevent it.

What I say above comes after understandinng the inconvenience of the decision but at the same time it is a bitter pill that for sure will help prevent the crimes done through cars, a small step but significant one.

[These views are personal and do not challenge anyone else's views that may be different. Sharing only my perspective.]

Please see the facebook update on Bangalore Traffic Police. They have listed free removal service.

Bangalore Traffic Police | Facebook

[Sankar]

From the Maruti Swift Accessory brochure:

"Sun Control Film
CMVR regulation compliant scratch resistant
glass coating helps car to stay cool, enhancing
efficiency of air conditioner. Available in Deluxe,
Premium, Luxurious & Standard with multiple shades."

Since this is provided by the manufacturer is it legal?

[Switch]

Just when I was cursing the law and driving in the Delhi heat in my car I noticed a Police Jeep with really dark tints. Immediately took a video. Who gives a right to these morons to question somebody when they themselves don't abide by the law. There was nothing visible inside the jeep and this video was taken on a really sunny day at around 2:30 in the afternoon.

[M5_fan]

Originally Posted by Switch

Just when I was cursing the law and driving in the Delhi heat in my car I noticed a Police Jeep with really dark tints. Immediately took a video. Who gives a right to these morons to question somebody when they themselves don't abide by the law. There was nothing visible inside the jeep and this video was taken on a really sunny day at around 2:30 in the afternoon.

Please post this on the delhi traffic police facebook page so that they know and also others know the competence of delhi police.

[mi2n]

Originally Posted by S2!!!

My point is if the rule is passed by the SC, I think we all should respect it rather than making a hue and fuss about it, and help the law and order to curtail crime in our city.

Sounds very pointless infact. This is so contrary to the fundamentals of Democracy as already mentioned a number of times. Firstly, I do not think this is a "Rule". According to our Constitution, only the Parliamentary Government could pass/legislate Acts and subsequently "Rules" would be framed by the relevant authority(Executives) for compliance with the Act and would always be governed by the Act. The Judiciary is entrusted with the judicial scrutiny of every such legislation (Acts/Rules) so passed so as to ascertain whether they adhere to the principles laid down in our Constitution apart from acting as an interpreter of the Constitution in case of disputes.

In a normal course of action, the Hon'ble Apex Court would have directed the Govt. and the relevant authorities to ratify the Rules as per provided guidelines and ensure proper implementation of the Rule. In this case, the SC has gone ahead an superseded a Rule framed under a constitutionally passed Act directly. While I'm not sure of the empowerment/restrictions of the Judiciary in doing this, it seems to the layman that the natural course of action was by-passed for the sake of maybe an "early disposal" of the petition without much botheration to the executives and legislators. So, for the ones affected by the Judgement, it definitely makes sense to make a "hue and fuss", otherwise it would dangerously resemble Dictatorship.

Moreover, why the common-man is irked by the instant judgement is very simple to understand :

1. We are unaware of what facts and details were taken into account by the Hon'ble SC ? What material was produced before the Hon'ble Bench, more importantly what was not ? Was their an expert panel appointed? Who were the member of such panel? What were their findings? The recording by the Hon'ble Court that due to the lack of Lux-o-meters or whatever the settled Rule could not be enforced adds fuel to fire, indicates that there were real dearth of cogent reasons for enforcement of the blanket ban. A convincing ground/reasoning is badly missing from the text of the Judgement doing circulation. There were seemingly nothing technical being discussed.

2. It is still unclear as to how crime can be curbed by doing away with a 50 / 70% VLT sun-film. We are left guessing whether a simple sample of 50/70% VLT film had been produced before the bench the outcome would have been different. A window pane tinted with a 50% VLT Film could have been easily produced before the Bench and if sanity prevailed the outcome would have been very conducive.

3. We are but left to understand that we are being penalized for the sake of subsiding the incompetency of the law-enforcement/administration. Well, we are not new to subsidies, but they generally do not hurt directly.

4. We are being robbed of an accessory which has many virtues. Shading, cooling, protecting from UV, preventing shattering or glass and consequent injuries, fuel savings,glare reduction, deterring theft(though theft is seemingly not a cognizable crime in India anymore). As the climate changes for the worse, sunfilms are poised to becoming mandatory fitments. Moreover, we have dished out 10-50 times more money on legal sun-films over the illegal Rs.500 "Black Films" and we are getting robbed for no fault of ours.

Yes, we are all law abiding citizens and would comply in this case as well. However, that does not take away our right to protest against and/or critically discuss bad Rules/Judgements or Acts committed by the guardians of law in our own limited/ non-harmful manner.

[raamki]

Originally Posted by Sankar

From the Maruti Swift Accessory brochure:
Since this is provided by the manufacturer is it legal?

Yes it is legal. As per the judgement, any tints provided by the manufacturer that meets the 70/50/70 VLT specification for the front, sides and back respectively is legal. Save a copy of that brochure in the car at all times!

Have to rip off films worth 12k from my one month Rapid and my heart bleeds at the mere thought of doing this!

Any aftermarket films of the same specification sadly is illegal. I have no clue why this double standard in the ruling. And am dumbfounded why none of the film companies haven't raised any objection to his judgement as yet!

[abhisheksircar]

Originally Posted by Sankar

From the Maruti Swift Accessory brochure:

"Sun Control Film
CMVR regulation compliant scratch resistant
glass coating helps car to stay cool, enhancing
efficiency of air conditioner. Available in Deluxe,
Premium, Luxurious & Standard with multiple shades."

Since this is provided by the manufacturer is it legal?

Originally Posted by raamki

Yes it is legal. As per the judgement, any tints provided by the manufacturer that meets the 70/50/70 VLT specification for the front, sides and back respectively is legal. Save a copy of that brochure in the car at all times!

Any aftermarket films of the same specification sadly is illegal. I have no clue why this double standard in the ruling. And am dumbfounded why none of the film companies haven't raised any objection to his judgement as yet!

3. The word ‘tinted’ means shade or hue as per the
dictionary. The rear and front and side glasses of vehicles are
provided with such shade or tint, and therefore, they are
widely referred to as ‘tinted glasses’, which is different from
‘black films’. The glasses of the vehicles having a coating of
black films cannot be termed as ‘tinted glasses’ because they
are not manufactured as such.

26. The manufacturer of the vehicle may manufacture the
vehicles with tinted glasses which have Visual Light
Transmission (VLT) of safety glasses windscreen (front and
rear) as 70 per cent VLT and side glasses as 40 per cent VLT,
respectively. No black film or any other material can be
pasted on the windscreens and side glasses of a vehicle.

Point 3 & 26 from the Supreme court verdict makes it illegal. Tinted glasses are allowed but no black film can be pasted. The options mentioned required pasting of the films on the glasses.

[sgiitk]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

Most of the cars I saw with very dark tints had one of these
1. Some political party flag
2. Police written on numberplate, with that red and blue sign
3. Judge/Magistrate etc., written

All these will get an exemption in a jiffy. It is only the Aam AAdmi who will suffer.

So as citizens of a democracy, our expectation is that
1. Parliament makes the law
2. Judiciary gives judgement if there is a dispute (for example if a law violates Freedom of speech which is a fundamental right, law can be challenged before judiciary)
3. Police is the enforcer

This works when all three wings Executive, Legislature and Judiciary do their work. If one (or two here) fail than the third will usurp their turf, which is what is happening here.

[blackfire_9]

Originally Posted by S2!!!

My point is if the rule is passed by the SC, I think we all should respect it rather than making a hue and fuss about it, and help the law and order to curtail crime in our city. When you say that politicians, judges, celebrities, etc, may never be stopped or questioned for their films but this is India. And if you are the common man (which most of us are) then Best of Luck to you!

Hey s2,

Would a decision always be right, just because it has been taken by a set of highly skilled/educated & experienced citizens of the country, such as the bench of our SC? No!
The irony is that though you say the SC verdict should be respected, your last few statements (such as ".....but this is India") clearly portray how you also probably believe that it just may not be respectable.

Talking of this particular issue, what about the law-abiding people who have always stayed within the law & have invested so heavily in procuring such films. Imagine somebody with a dreadful sun allergy such as my father, for whom a legal but good quality sun-film was proving useful in making the daily commute much easier.
The SC might as well ask the car manufacturers to now manufacture all their cars without a roof & windows. I mean, why stop at just the sun-films.

And I would have had supported this decision, provided the court had issued an alternative for the sun-film & a provision for those who had already invested within the framework of the law. For me personally, it was 1/3rd of my monthly salary & it surely hurts when because of one "intellectual" individual's PIL, all that money has to go down the drain.

Originally Posted by Irish

Hi Tanveer,

Therefore, the judiciary has not done anything wrong by giving this order. There have been a lot of such instances, where The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has rectified such laws / practices, which were in use since British Rule also.

Hey irish,

I agree that the SC can & should make amendments, keeping in mind the changing socio-economic scenario. But like I have said above, I firmly believe that a "new" decision may not always be right or should I say, in the best interests of a lot of people of the state/country.

[Irish]

Originally Posted by blackfire_9

Hey irish,

I agree that the SC can & should make amendments, keeping in mind the changing socio-economic scenario. But like I have said above, I firmly believe that a "new" decision may not always be right or should I say, in the best interests of a lot of people of the state/country.

That's why you have got an opportunity also to file a review petition. Challenge such decisions in The Hon'ble Supreme Court Of India itself.

Cheers!
Irish

[krishnaprasad]

Now that I have spent 4K on the sunfilms less than 6 months ago and facing an uncertain 'law' , the question arises, Does any one know If I can safely remove the sunfilm and reuse the same when the law's become more logical? Anyone here who would provide the expert knowledge would be greatly appreciated.

I know I sound a bit stingy but 4k is not a small sum for me :-(.