[rajni]

Just had the 3M fixed on side windows and rear two weeks ago for 5.2K and now it is to be peeled off. The news says Supreme court judgement and hence it seems the rule is applicable to all parts of India. I hope it wouldn't cause any damage to the glass itself or the defogger channel on the rear window while removing. And who knows they would allow it again after some time. Confused :-/

[greenhorn]

Originally Posted by srishiva

Look at this from the judgement

"Another adverse aspect of use of
black films is that even if they reflect tolerable VLT in the day
time, still in the night it would clearly violate the prescribed
VLT limits and would result in poor visibility, which again
would be impermissible"

I'm having trouble understanding this statement. VLT as far as I know is a % of light. How does that change with night and day ?

[aqualeo2040]

Assuming that at least 70% of all vehicles plying on Indian Roads have sunfilms/tints, and INR 100 charged per car, I am sure we all as a community of drivers can definitely bring down the fiscal deficit of our country!

The more relevant question would be the methodology employed by our law enforcers? Will there be any use of Force/Power to get rid of this menace? In that case, what about collateral damage i.e. broken/damaged windows, windscreens, defoggers? Will the Govt take any responsiblity for these?
The money, which we would be willingly paying up, will that end up in the Govt Coffers or will it end up sponsoring the next evening party hosted by the generous Cop?

[Nitrous Power]

Originally Posted by akshay4587

If not glass area,where else you plan to stick curtains?
My Car has a curtain\Sunblind for rear glass,and cars like superb have sunblinds for rear windows as well,where is the judgement for these?
These are more opaque than sunfilms.

Same here, my Merc has manual sun blinds for rear side windows and auto retractable sun blinds for rear window provided as original equipment from company itself. These don't even touch any of the windows. Most of higher end cars come with this feature. I don't know how this new rule will impact these high end cars as generally these sun blinds are black and blocks complete vision.

For me, issue is really with Merc's sun blinds only as all my other cars don't have sun films since they are factory installed tinted glass. However, this new ruling qualifies as one of the most ridiculous decisions ruled by Honorable Supreme Court. If you can't implement a law, just ban it: Stupidity at its best.

[Dr.Vikas]

I remember, I once had removed all the tints on my previous M800. It's quite a troublesome & also a time consuming job. The only thing that could ease our efforts is to remove the films while the car is in 'full' sunlight. Because when they are a bit heated/ hot, it becomes easier to peel off in bigger pieces, also resulting the residue of the glue to lesser extent.

[kingofkings]

I think the ruling should go down as one of the most ill-thought and practically un-implementable laws in the country. And thats saying something in a land which is full of such glaring examples. What are the going to ban next...what about car curtains. How about making air bags and other basic safety features mandatory rather than passing laws that have clearly not been thought through?
Also one aspect of this entire farce is...nearly zero media coverage. Theres nothing on the TV/Papers (at least not yet). For a law which has far reaching ramifications and which will have an impact on a large section of society its surprising.
In all possibility it looks like one of those laws that just may be swept under the carpet...High Security Number Plates anyone?
If not then its time to break out the sunscreen and trusty old ray bans for your daily commutes.

[bloodred]

I have a local film on my santro. It's 6 years old, not very dark but the sunfilm application is obvious. I was planning to ground this car for the time being, use other car with certified legal film and eventually get rid of film on Santro.

The other car Laura has vk70 all around for which hard earned 29k was invested last year to cut the heat with minimal impact on visibility and full compliance of law as understood st that time. The thought of this money gone waste in less than a year and potential damage to defogger really hurts.

With clarity emerging that no film will be spared, I'll be using Santro over next few days and will ground Laura. Don't want to feel doubly stupid by wasting vk70, if sun films come back in few days.

[Jaggu]

I feel this is a ill thought judgement. Sun films are a boon in metro's for women, especially at night since they can avoid so much of unwanted attention. If the reason is criminal activities like rape, i would say more number of women are saved because of sun film. More car break in's are avoided since valuables are away from prying eyes.

Now from an environmental angle, in our indian summer the saving of fuel and the related reduction of pollution etc due to a more efficient air conditioning system cant be just brushed off. More pollution = contribution to global warming Again they say more accidents due to poor visibility, i can counter it by saying its safer at night since these films cut out the glaring high beams off the ORVMs.

In short a more detailed scientific study is to be made and stick to a more reasonable middle path of lighter sun films to be considered atleast, instead of point blank ban. Least i would expect in a democracy.

If crime is the reason then delivery type vans with completely covered rear loading bay would be more of a concern in the coming days.

I think ill use the gypsy for few days, anyways the film is messed up. So let them rip it off if they wish to. Once things settle down and hopefully someone challenge this judgement by then

[rajeev k]

Originally Posted by Jaggu

Sun films are a boon in metro's for women, especially at night since they can avoid so much of unwanted attention. If the reason is criminal activities like rape, i would say more number of women are saved because of sun film. More car break in's are avoided since valuables are away from prying eyes.

+1 to that. Absolutely right.

Again they say more accidents due to poor visibility, i can counter it by saying its safer at night since these films cut out the glaring high beams off the ORVMs.

The high power headlamps are to be banned first. This causes a lot of accidents and goes off unnoticed. The Volvos with six headlights, buses and trucks with four apiece are to be banned. Only a maximum of two lamps to be allowed.

[sumeethaldankar]

Originally Posted by Jaggu

I feel this is a ill thought judgement. Sun films are a boon in metro's for women, especially at night since they can avoid so much of unwanted attention. If the reason is criminal activities like rape, i would say more number of women are saved because of sun film. More car break in's are avoided since valuables are away from prying eyes.

This is so much true.It is the other side of the coin.The SC has simply not taken into the consideration of the positive sides of having sun films.

Also i find it unfair that no deadline has been provided to motorist to get the sun film removed.How are the millions of vehicles plying on the roads today suppose to get their sun films removed in the next 2-3 days ?

[maglev]

Originally Posted by sandsun7

Unfortunately, this is not what the court says, infotech58. It says that the manufacturers if they wish may manufacture the car with tinted glasses with minimum 70% VLT in the front and 50% on the sides, and adding any other film of any VLT on the original glasses is banned, w e f May 4, 2012.

The original text copy of the judgement is here: http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/...c%2026511p.txt

read the last para specifically.
"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"

It may sound stupid but the ruling clearly states BLACK FILMS, so I guess this means that the very very light ones which are slightly green, and actually look like the plain glass itself except that they are more reflective would be able to get away.

I got these done when a similar ban was in place a couple of years ago and never got fined.

So for me its going back to these from the Jet Blacks (5% VLT on the sides) that I currently have.

[SLK]

Just like numerous patent lawsuits in the US legal system, which has put immense pressure on the system, the Indian legal system is clogged with stupid PILs which has had effect on the quality of the system itself and I think .... this judgment is an unfortunate product of that system.

[rajeev k]

Originally Posted by maglev

It may sound stupid but the ruling clearly states BLACK FILMS, so I guess this means that the very very light ones which are slightly green, and actually look like the plain glass itself except that they are more reflective would be able to get away
So for me its going back to these from the Jet Blacks (5% VLT on the sides) that I currently have.

Use of Black films or any material on the glasses are now prohibited.
If you meant tinted glasses by slight green, it can be used.

[neel385]

Don't know how easy it will be for the order to be uniformly implemented, specially all the "neta" cars that I have seen have deeply tinted glasses. Or maybe the netas will have a rider added to the order passed in the "larger interests" of the state!!

PS On the flip side, did I just hear the cross road enterprising businessmen selling the suction blinds that these have suddenly become a lot more expensive?

[RadiantKarma]

Originally Posted by greenhorn

I'm having trouble understanding this statement. VLT as far as I know is a % of light. How does that change with night and day ?

+1

I am also trying to understand the interpretation of the Rule 100(2) as given in the order

100(2) 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%,...

If I put sunfilm in such a way that the glass is maintained within the specified limit, does the above provision get violated? The ruling has interpreted the provisions of the Act as

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.

Of course, there are several gems in the ruling as brought out by others on the forum. One of the observations in the ruling states that

Use of these black films have been proved to be criminal’s paradise and a social evil.

I used to think that only the real dark sunfilms were the potential culprits. The light coloured ones held out no public threat and offered immense comfort. Of course, I also now understand that the fuel saving due to reduced AC load and its economic and environmental benefits is something of little significance.

I am learning quite a few new things today from the judgment and am generally feeling quite blessed.