[vivek.ks]

This is not good for Bangalore at all. Summer is on its peak and I am told to remove sun films. I am just worried when police starts taking action againts sunfilm on cars. This is our hard earned money down the drain.

In bangalore drive would start around May 19 as mentioned in this TOI Link.

Remove sun film on cars by May 19 - Times Of India

[vipul_singh]

Quick update for everyone: NOIDA police has begun this initiative in earnest, with a squad of some 10 policemen posted right opposite my office (Sec 63).

They did not insist on stripping the film in cases where the film was not coming off easily, but did issue challans (Rs. 100)

[asdon]

Can someone give me an idea how much it will cost to file a review in Full Bench of Supreme Court? I think sunfilm companies are not going to do anything in recent times, its the mango people who will have to do it...

[Parthasarathig]

Rapes and many more crimes against women, plus other crimes such as pickpocketting etc happen in public transport as well. Many women get inappropriate touches while travelling in trains and buses everyday. A few months back rape was reported to have been committed in UP train by a TTE. Why havent all these gone into your data petitioner jee? Why all that your data says is only about cars? If you love cars live cars please join TeamBhp. If you hate cars this much please go to a demolition derby.

And who says music systems are portable? They are not ipods that we can take them out of the car all the time. Sir jee your thinking is either flawed or retarded.

I think this guy has targetted the car driving public. Maybe he had a life changing incident because of someone's recklessness while driving so he has thought of various ways to extract revenge from the car loving public. Maybe he has spent days plotting and planning how to make life miserable for car owners. He may have tried many ways but then realised revenge is a dish best served at someone's (car owner) frustration. Pretty twisted plot here, spicy enough to be a bollywood hit :frustrati:

What makes me all the more frustrated is how the media isnt raising any questions against this sort of ban? How "thebuckstopshere" and "newshour" are going on rattling about useless deals and whatnot, and ignoring this move. For heavens sake a journalist had been found dead in her car in Delhi at night. How the hell do you think the robbers saw her in the car? Had she got sun films in her car the robbers probably would not have identified her.
Cheers!!

[KiloAlpha]

We, the mango people, use sun film in our cars mostly because we drive small, affordable cars. And these cars do not come with heat rejecting glass as a standard (Please correct me if I am wrong).
Which makes life uncomfortable 9 months out of 12.

If my car - a Figo - had heat rejecting glass as standard, I would definitely not have bothered with sun film. I have one with VLT 50% on side windows and rear window.

Somehow, I don't think the hon'ble court or the petitioner had seen this:

Window film - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[madhu.rj]

Originally Posted by mav2000

So are all sun films banned or only some above a certain %. I was sure all sun films are banned and was planning to go and get them removed. But someone just told me that anything above a certain % only is banned and mine should not be an issue.

As per the SC ruling:
" 16. In face of the language of the Rule, we cannot grant the
petitioner the relief prayed for, that there should be 100 per
cent VLT. This Court cannot issue directions that vehicles
should have glasses with 100 per cent VLT. 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. "

And as per the MVA, Front and rear VLT should be >70% and side should be >50%.

To view the ruling goto the link The Judgment Information System -> click on Case No. on the left side index -> select CASE TYPE=Writ Petition (Civil), CASE NO=265 and YEAR=2011 and submit.

There is no direct weblink I could find.

Cheers,

M

Originally Posted by Mad Max

Can the Supreme court make it MANDATORY for all car manufacturers to have 70% VLT tinted glasses for all cars, irrespective of segment / category? This could solve the problem. But this may push the price up but not sure by how much. Thoughts?

Also, it seem there is a section for this in the SC ruling:
"17. However, the prayer relating to issuance of directions
prohibiting use of black films on the glasses of vehicles
certainly has merit. 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."

Can a lawyer on the forum confirm my this? (I'm an engineer)

PS: Mods pls merge my earlier comment with this. I do not have direct rights to post and hence cannot yet see my last comment to edit.

Cheers,

M

[vipul_singh]

Originally Posted by Parthasarathig

What makes me all the more frustrated is how the media isnt raising any questions against this sort of ban? How "thebuckstopshere" and "newshour" are going on rattling about useless deals and whatnot, and ignoring this move.

The reason, most likely, is that this is a judicial decision and not a government decision. They would have been all over this if this was a government diktat. Nobody wants to be held in contempt

[Karan1981]

I have a question here if anyone can help answer: If we put completely transparent films (Examples: Vkool Top end ones or similar in any other good brand), which provides 99.9% heat rejection, UV Rejection etc, why should that be banned? Only if it's dark is when the problem should start right even as per the new law?

I'm not sure if i understand this correctly, but i don't understand the difference here. My Car has come pre tinted from Manufacturer. In addition to that they've also installed vkools, however if those are transparent, how does it make a difference to anyone as even after removing them the veiw will remain the same except that for me the heat will be all in the vehicle?

[sudarshansarma]

The Police are blaming their incompetence on sun film. I agree the dark shades above the permisible limit are to be removed, but getting rid of them altogether is ridiculous. Not to mention the effect it will have on the accessories business!. V Kool will be laughing all the way to the bank now!

[sumeethaldankar]

There is a pic of a policeman placing a fine on a motorist for having dark tints on his car in today's edition of TOI mumbai edition page 6 stating.

"DARK DAYS ARE OVER: Following the recent Supreme Court order banning the use of tinted glass in cars, the Thane traffic police on Monday began cracking down on vehicles with dark screens"

Seems the epidemic has spread to Mumbai and i may have to do a surgery with a blade on my car this coming weekend.

[babu.sundaram]

Originally Posted by Karan1981

I have a question here if anyone can help answer: If we put completely transparent films (Examples: Vkool Top end ones or similar in any other good brand), which provides 99.9% heat rejection, UV Rejection etc, why should that be banned? Only if it's dark is when the problem should start right even as per the new law?

I'm not sure if i understand this correctly, but i don't understand the difference here. My Car has come pre tinted from Manufacturer. In addition to that they've also installed vkools, however if those are transparent, how does it make a difference to anyone as even after removing them the veiw will remain the same except that for me the heat will be all in the vehicle?

Per the judgement, the glass cannot be altered from what the manufacturers have provided. No films, tinted or not are allowed.

Quote from judgement:
"27. 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"

[Parthasarathig]

Originally Posted by Karan1981

I have a question here if anyone can help answer: If we put completely transparent films (Examples: Vkool Top end ones or similar in any other good brand), which provides 99.9% heat rejection, UV Rejection etc, why should that be banned? Only if it's dark is when the problem should start right even as per the new law?

If you have completely transparent films, my thinking is you will never be stopped by the cops. They can only notice that the car has films when it is of some obvious dark shade you know. Once its 99.9% transparent noone can tell theres a film and hence noone will stop you.
One can bypass this law by several ways i guess. One like you suggested totally transparent films.

[ozzyrules]

Positive: I will use this as an excuse to work-from-home May 19th onwards

Negative: I can't go to the neighbourhood shop in my pajamas or sleep/night wear. I risk being fined for inappropriate dressing on our public roads and also risk being oogled.

[supratim07]

It's really insane to see this ruling from SC....bare amount of protection from our SUN god being ruled out by SC judgement.Any enforcement delays or someone filed any petition against it......as i don't see sunfilms going out before 19th May.

[500ContyCruiser]

Two more negative points I see,
1. People driving during off hours or in isolated areas would be at risk (especially lady drivers)
2. Robbers will have more visibility on whats in the car.