[mayankk]

Useless.
Anyway, I dont have tints anywhere except the rear window.
And i am worried that if these police thugs get down to remove it, they are going to kill my defogger.
Looked around, and if youre a DIY type of guy, have a dekko:

How to Remove Window Tint: 20 steps (with pictures) - wikiHow

[smats]

It is not clear if the law applies to only BLACK films or all kind of films?

If some one has a green tint or a green sun film with permissible transparency limits, does that need to go too?

[sourav9385]

Originally Posted by rajshenoy

The article talks about Banning Tinted glasses in Delhi !! where does it talk about ban across the country ?

Here in bangalore, there has been no communication about this so far. how can they suddenly stop you one day and ask for fine ?

It takes time for someone to visit the qualified person to get the tinted glasses checked/removed etc.

When they started the drive for seat belts, alot of information was provided in advance so that people took it seriously.

I dont see any such communication happening about tinted glasses atleast in Bangalore

Hello,

I think you missed the section in the third paragraph that clearly mentions : "throughout the country". Here's a screenshot highlighting the same.



That was my major gripe with this whole fiasco.
High crime rate in one part of the country does not warrant the removal of tints from cars all over the country. That is absolute nonsense IMO.

This law should be tried out first in Delhi. If crime rates become any lesser, then it makes some sense.
If successful, then extend to rest of the country. Glass tint is a necessity in India due to whether conditions given its benefits.
Otherwise, this ruling seems to be hasty, ill-reasoned and shallow, from what is reported.

Attributing crime to happen because of tinted glassed in cars may be a very small reason only as we seem to miss the trick of better policing.
Although any crime is a crime, why are we not seeing any sharp response & steps of prevention to crimes that happen because of poverty first and on high priority?

Why the extreme urgency to remove tints by 4 May 2012 - in 3 days, nationwide? Is it a war-like situation?

[p'arth]

Does this mean that sun film manufacturers will have to shut shop in India? Or they will sell to houses as curtain competitors on window panes

[Irish]

Originally Posted by smats

It is not clear if the law applies to only BLACK films or all kind of films?

If some one has a green tint or a green sun film with permissible transparency limits, does that need to go too?

Sunfilm is a sunfilm, irrespective of the color. As per the news article, any tints which are not provided by the manufacturer MUST be removed.

Originally Posted by sourav9385

Hello,

I think you missed the section in the third paragraph that clearly mentions : "throughout the country". Here's a screenshot highlighting the same.



That was my major gripe with this whole fiasco.
High crime rate in one part of the country does not warrant the removal of tints from cars all over the country. That is absolute nonsense IMO.

This law should be tried out first in Delhi. If crime rates become any lesser, then it makes some sense.
If successful, then extend to rest of the country. Glass tint is a necessity in India due to whether conditions given its benefits.
Otherwise, this ruling seems to be hasty, ill-reasoned and shallow, from what is reported.

Attributing crime to happen because of tinted glassed in cars may be a very small reason only as we seem to miss the trick of better policing.
Although any crime is a crime, why are we not seeing any sharp response & steps of prevention to crimes that happen because of poverty first and on high priority?

Why the extreme urgency to remove tints by 4 May 2012 - in 3 days, nationwide? Is it a war-like situation?

Since the order has come from The Hon'ble Supreme Cort of India, we shall refrain ourselves from making such comments. The Hon'ble Court must have gone through the facts which would have been provided.

Cheers!
Irish

[beast_within]

Originally Posted by anujmishra

This is bit illogical and immature comment in public forum. I think, no one is authorized and allowed to comment on Apex Court Orders like this and it is deemed as illegal and contempt of court.

Well I'm sorry for my ignorance I know . But what is the rationale behind banning sufilms of all the grades and visibility. With due respect for Rules which says 50/70 % VLT is permissable what is the problem If one is using sunfilms for relevant grade to achieve this VLT limit. why it has to be factory fitted ?

I agree that going forward manufacturers may tint the glasses accordingly, but what about the existing cars on road, not all have factory fitted tinted glasses.

[carfreak77]

I too read earlier on TOI website that all films are banned while a couple of days ago there was an article which mentioned certain films are allowed. But now, the article has vanished from TOI website. If it is indeed true that no film is allowed at all, all I have to say is: Are the authorities nuts? We live in India where the temperature rises to 35C+ everyday and the amount of UV radiation is tremendous. Do they want us to expose ourselves to the UV radiation and get skin cancer? What kind of nonsense is this?

They should ban the extremely dark (almost black) film and allow the lighter versions. Also, there are many who spent extra money putting the special films that were "allowed" by the RTO and now they want us to remove them. We should only be asked to remove our films if we have the extremely dark ones. Other ones must stay. Even then, the authorities must pay those who have to get their dark tints specially removed.

On a side note- What about the babus and netas who go around with jet black tints? Do they also have to remove their films? I'm sure that as usual the rule will not apply to them and only to the common citizens who are easy targets.
Lets hope that some sense prevails on our authorities. Just goes to show how the law makers are far from reality.

[samarjitdhar]

Originally Posted by anujmishra

This is bit illogical and immature comment in public forum. I think, no one is authorized and allowed to comment on Apex Court Orders like this and it is deemed as illegal and contempt of court.

Originally Posted by beast_within

Well I'm sorry for my ignorance I know . But what is the rationale behind banning sufilms of all the grades and visibility. With due respect for Rules which says 50/70 % VLT is permissable what is the problem If one is using sunfilms for relevant grade to achieve this VLT limit. why it has to be factory fitted ?

I agree that going forward manufacturers may tint the glasses accordingly, but what about the existing cars on road, not all have factory fitted tinted glasses.

I fully agree. This is like changing the rules of the game in the middle of the game. With all due respect to the Supreme Court of India, it is not the body as per the constitution where rules are to be framed, defined or redefined. The judiciary is supposed to ensure that rules are enforced as per the laws of the land that are written in the constitution, set by parliament, created by respective government departments including the department of transport.

The CMVR clearly states that 50-70 visibility is allowed on tints and many a law abiding citizen went for the same keeping in mind the rules and most importantly foregoing the comfort and privacy that darker and non-compliant tints would have provided. Is that the price to pay for being on the right side of the law? Sure the Supreme Court is an august body but it cannot be fully so sacrosanct that what the constitution which defines its boundaries can be ignored.

Originally Posted by carfreak77

They should ban the extremely dark (almost black) film and allow the lighter versions. Also, there are many who spent extra money putting the special films that were "allowed" by the RTO and now they want us to remove them. We should only be asked to remove our films if we have the extremely dark ones. Other ones must stay. Even then, the authorities must pay those who have to get their dark tints specially removed.

As per CMVR rules the limits are 50/70. These are also clearly communicated by all renowned sun film manufacturers. When one goes for the tints in a car one has the option to abide by the law or ignore it. Why should authorities compensate folks who have put on extremely dark tints non-compliant with the CMVR guidelines? I for sure cannot judge the pros and cons of using such extremely dark tints but I have seen some cars with almost 0% visibility inside. Clearly using those tints which do not comply with the guidelines is a breach of the existing law of the land and should not expect compensation. Of course now this law has been rewritten and re-interpreted in the courts

Originally Posted by carfreak77

On a side note- What about the babus and netas who go around with jet black tints? Do they also have to remove their films? I'm sure that as usual the rule will not apply to them and only to the common citizens who are easy targets.

Rest assured these guys won't be touched.

Originally Posted by carfreak77

Lets hope that some sense prevails on our authorities. Just goes to show how the law makers are far from reality.

Exactly our law makers have made this law and put it within the CMVR ambit. Now the courts have taken it upon itself to redefine it completely

Originally Posted by RadiantKarma

Source:No illegal tinted glass in cars from May 4: Supreme Court - The Times of India

This soothes my nerves. But I still have a question - why on earth is an SC ruling required for something that has been laid down in the rulebook for eons?!

That's old news dated April 28th. Here is the new one http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/i...w/12956949.cms where it still says regardless of the compliance with the 50/70 rule all tints have to be removed. Sometimes I think law making and enforcing in India is a matter of negotiations given the way people abide or ignore them and law enforcement agencies enforce them. Since the law of the land was being ignored and not enforced at all the Supreme Court thought it prudent to jolt everybody out of their slumber to ban the law. Now there will be a string of petitions and representations from all departments including law enforcement and finally there might be a thin chance of enforcement of a law in the books for decades. Bharat Mata Ki Jai.

[SLK]

There is a simple rule of thumb in India, if you can't implement something, BAN it.

I don't understand the intention of this rule on differentiating between manufacturer's tint and film.

You might have diesel vehicles being banned because they didn't want to implement emmision norms.

[RadiantKarma]

I was worked up in the morning after reading the article in the ToI that mentioned banning of any and all sunfilms across the country by the SC. However, the ToI online version seems to have silently amended the contents of the article that now states..

From May 4, if your car has black film on the front and rear windscreens that blocks light by more than 30% and the tint on the side window panes is more than 50%, then you could be in contempt of court in addition to being prosecuted as per the rules provided under the Motor Vehicles Act.

A bench of Chief Justice S H Kapadia and Justices A K Patnaik and Swatanter Kumar went by the limits prescribed in the MV Act and said anything beyond the visual light transmission (VLT) limit of 70% for the front and rear windshields and 50% for the side windows would be punishable.

Source:No illegal tinted glass in cars from May 4: Supreme Court - The Times of India

This soothes my nerves a bit. But I still have a question - why on earth is an SC ruling required for something that has been laid down in the rulebook for eons?!

On reading further, the 2nd para of the following portion from the same report, however, is still a cause for concern, and probably the genesis of the earlier ToI report...

The decision came on a PIL filed by Avishek Goenka, who had complained that cars with black film on window panes were being increasingly used for crimes, including sexual assault of women. He said though there was no express restraint on use of black film under the MV Act, it prescribed VLT limits.

Writing the judgment for the bench, Justice Kumar said, "On the plain reading of the rule, it is clear that cars must have safety glass having VLT at the time of manufacturing... In other words, the rule not impliedly but specifically prohibits alteration of such VLT by any means."

Can someone throw light on this aspect?

[bigron]

Being a lawyer i have a few suggestions on the topic. Firstly , its a supreme court ruling and hence every state and UT is bound to execute it from the given date. So technically , if you have filming on your window get it out before Friday because the cops will fine you for violation. I am not to sure if they have altered the MV act to remove/modify the clause pertaining to tints/films on passenger cars permanently or the said order stands until further clarity is issued by the apex court. If the idea was to remove any sort of concealment on the windows then shades and curtains will also fall within the preview of the ruling. Though, the law extends to vehicles of government officials and politicians too , i dont see their cars removing them at least not in their own states. Delhi can implement it but other states will have loopholes . I dont see our official car which has fairly dark tints to be stopped by any traffic cop and asked to remove the tints at least in my own state. Same goes for alot of my friends and their parents official cars and hoards of other officers and politicians. And frankly , this order is absurd merely as a reason to curb crime.Also , in India executing an order to the T is very difficult at grass root level.
Lastly as someone mentioned , i see the order being implemented initially and then eventually it will be back to square one.

[beast_within]

Originally Posted by RadiantKarma

Source:No illegal tinted glass in cars from May 4: Supreme Court - The Times of India

This soothes my nerves. But I still have a question - why on earth is an SC ruling required for something that has been laid down in the rulebook for eons?!

Apart for the ToIs multiple versions, can anyone quote a reliable official source or Hon'ble SC ruling/guidelines verbatim on this sunfilm thing.

[amitayu]

check out Satyendra Garg's page in Facebook..the Dg Traffic of Delhi Police has put up this order on his home page

[rajatsingh78]

Originally Posted by beast_within

Apart for the ToIs multiple versions, can anyone quote a reliable official source or Hon'ble SC ruling/guidelines verbatim on this sunfilm thing.

Point no. 27 states as follows -

"For the reasons afore-stated, we prohibit the use of black
films of any VLT percentage or any other material upon the
safety glasses, windscreens (front and rear) and side glasses of
all vehicles throughout the country. The Home Secretary,
Director General/Commissioner of Police of the respective
States/Centre shall ensure compliance with this direction.
The directions contained in this judgment shall become
operative and enforceable with effect from 4 th May, 2012."

Basically no sort of film is now allowed.

Attaching the copy of the order that I searched from the official website of Supreme Court of India

[mayankjha1806]

I don't mind removing the films, only need a safer DIY way to do this, read the earlier post from @mayankk, it needs some Ammonia spray. Isn't there a simpler non chemical way to do this?

The rule does sound illogical but knowing the problems in implementing the earlier 50/70 rule, the honorable court must have felt its better to ban everything. The removal and changes to the TOI article makes me believe that TOI may have jumped the gun again and reported this thing incorrectly. Will have to wait for a day or so to get some clarity.

On a separate note, how effective are those sticky things (The square or rectangle ones) like a black net in preventing sun and heat? The way things are moving might be a good time to buy a few of those.