[Catalyst_delhi]

I cant deal with this people , I tore off my sun screen this morning. Sun tan lotion anyone? Are there super clear films which clock out UV and IR rays? No very happy as my car looks a bit empty without tints.

[fine69]

I'm doing my regular office route from Defence Colony (South Delhi) to Gurgan (Udyog Vihar) daily (Ring road - RTR - NH8 expressway - IFFCO - Udyog Vihar) and have not seen any traffic cop stopping anybody to remove sunfilms at least on this route.

I reckon its because of the high traffic during office hours and they only step into action later in the day and that too most likely on routes which are not bottlenecks of any kind.

My plan till any stay is issued is to start off early for work and start for home only when it starts to get dark.

I wonder though how my swift is going to look without any tints, not a pretty sight to imagine.

[mooza]

Googled for removable and re usable tints, there are "static cling films" available.

From a cursory survey, these are available only abroad

Maybe they should market it here, after seeing this amusing flip flop "strict-enforcement / Now-I-turn-the-other-way" yo yoing going on here in India by the authorities, much like the "helmet on, helmet off" thing that was happening sometime ago

Has anybody got these on line, or used these abroad ?

[kingofkings]

Originally Posted by vinod332002

Looks like there is a lot of action in Delhi. Any news from Mumbai/ Pune anyone?

Nothing in Pune yesterday and nothing so far. Can anyone else from Mumbai/Pune corroborate please?

[RadiantKarma]

Originally Posted by vinod332002

So the supreme court has gone by the rule book (which they should) and said as per the law, there is no provision to alter VLT, hence it is illegal. In this case, I don't see the point of a petition asking the court t reverse it's decision. The only way to get this reversed is an amendment to the CRMV act to allow film; such amendment is not something the court can pass.

Is that so? Pl. look up closely the provision which states

As per the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 100 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 the glass of the windscreen and rear window of every motor vehicle has to be such and be maintained in such a condition that the visual transmission of light is not less than 70%. The glasses used for side windows have to be such and be maintained in such condition that the visual transmission of light is not less than 50%.

To me, the rule just states that the VLT is to be manufactured and maintained within the specified limits. Does it state that it cannot be altered? However, hon'ble court has interpreted that the same cannot be altered.

In any case, now that the apex court has already given its interpretation, only it can review it. Else, as you rightly mentioned, the MV Act would need to be amended.

[vinod332002]

Originally Posted by RadiantKarma

Is that so? Pl. look up closely the provision which states

To me, the rule just states that the VLT is to be manufactured and maintained within the specified limits. Does it state that it cannot be altered? However, hon'ble court has interpreted that the same cannot be altered.

In any case, now that the apex court has already given its interpretation, only it can review it. Else, as you rightly mentioned, the MV Act would need to be amended.

Yes, it's their interpretation on something that is open to interpretation when read. However, in the judgement they have said that the provision not impliedly, but specifically prohibits any alteration. Whether by alteration to the act or review of judgement, I hope this is reversed before my 16k VKool becomes a casualty of this high handed rule.

[godog]

Originally Posted by asdon

I am fully with you on this, but what makes me sad is, in past also such online campaign came and gone nothing changed, I did sign it but don't think this will change anything, so if some one has to challange it, have to do it in a court, that was my point.

Please have faith. After the requisite number of signatures are received, a review petition will be filed on the basis of the number of signatures garnered, among other things.

For success stories, I found this link on the same website: Petition Victories and Winning Online Petitions at Change.org

The petition asking for a review of the harsh stance taken by the SC is here:
Petition: the supreme court of india: Reconsider decision on a blanket ban on car films. | Change.org

{Mods, taking the liberty to re-post link to the petition in view of public interest. Please oblige. }

[mayankk]

Hey guys,
If anyone is interested in a DIY, I just got off my own, and have posted it here.
http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/modifi...-not-do-d.html

[akshay4587]

I stay in a cantonment,and the local newspaper is carrying a photo of sunfilm being torn off a Army gypsy as the officer looks on,so this move is here to stay.

[SLK]

Originally Posted by vinod332002

So the supreme court has gone by the rule book (which they should) and said as per the law, there is no provision to alter VLT, hence it is illegal. In this case, I don't see the point of a petition asking the court t reverse it's decision. The only way to get this reversed is an amendment to the CRMV act to allow film; such amendment is not something the court can pass.

This is what the relevant part of rule 100 says "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"

It uses the word "maintained" in such condition and in no case it says you can't change VLT by any other means. SC has done, what we call in accounting as convenience accounting! which means "If I interpret this rule in a way that it supports what I want to do in my judgment".

Let me know if I missed anything?

[coolclouds]

I just removed my black film myself and it was a very easy job for hardly 10mins. No adhesive in glass. The car looks empty :(

Any recommendation on film which is within permissible limits?

[RadiantKarma]

Originally Posted by vinod332002

Yes, it's their interpretation on something that is open to interpretation when read. However, in the judgement they have said that the provision not impliedly, but specifically prohibits any alteration.

Yeah. I have read the judgment more than once and I fail to comprehend the interpretation.

Whether by alteration to the act or review of judgement, I hope this is reversed before my 16k VKool becomes a casualty...

+1

[vinod332002]

Originally Posted by coolclouds

I just removed my black film myself and it was a very easy job for hardly 10mins. No adhesive in glass. The car looks empty :(

Any recommendation on film which is within permissible limits?

Sorry to burst the bubble on you mate, but the latest ruling puts all kinds of sun film in the illegal bracket. Please go through earlier posts.

[Akshay1234]

All I can say is share this petition as much as possible and get as many people as you can to sign in. Only some 300 people have signed it already which is nothing. This is one way of possibly getting some media attention to the topic. But many more signatures are needed.

Petition: the supreme court of india: Reconsider decision on a blanket ban on car films. | Change.org

If the person who filed a PIL could get an SC order with only 25 cases, lets give him 10000+ signatures on this.

[vaibzi]

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.

Originally Posted by vinod332002

Sorry to burst the bubble on you mate, but the latest ruling puts all kinds of sun film in the illegal bracket. Please go through earlier posts.

This is getting quite confusing. Some people are saying upto certain % it is being allowed while some are saying its totally not allowed. Could somebody please clear the air, for the benefit of all?

Thanks.