[S2!!!]

Originally Posted by himanshugoswami

Ask those very same friends of yours if they follow the law of their adopted land to teh "T". i can bet they do.

So, if the same is done by all (or most) in India, a lot of our problems will go away as well.

the law has always been very clear on tints. its only that most of us chose to violate it with the chalta hai attitude....question is, would you show the same scant disregard for the law in a western country or the middle east? NO....

I agree the SC judgement is flawed, but consider what brought this on in the first place? if people were to scrupulously adhere to teh legal limits of tints, this may not have happened in the first place.

Exactly my opinion.

Originally Posted by New.Novice

S2!!! the "cribbing" is only against the blanket order of banning all tints not differentiating between what is legal and what is not (as per old RTO rules). Please dont come down so harsh on people who show displeasure with the ruling.

The problem is most people here are the ones who have put in the extra dark tints to give their car a 'cool' look or stay cool from the heat around, having absolute disregard for the law and taking advantage of the fact that the cops let them go without taking any action. They end up spending 4 or 5-digit figures on getting these films applied and are the ones who are criticising the fact that they have to peel off the illegal film. But if the government is taking a step to curb crime (specially in a place like Delhi) then I think we should support it rather than criticise and make such a big fuss about it.

when you say that even the other guys having lighter films are suffering because of this but honestly this rule is not going to affect the lighter film guys (atleast in Mumbai) considering the fact that almost every car on the road here wears films and only a few are totally black (who are the ones who may face the heat).

[sgiitk]

Let me say we have to take some of the blame for this draconian order. I know some people put 70/50 on top of 70/50 glasses reducing the transmission to 49/25! Also, many people were knowingly or unknowingly using illegal films.

The same for HSRP plates. We have never been able to enforce the CMRV order (too creative). Go to the UK all plates bear a BSS mark, and no hanky panky. I myself saw a car with a 6786 registration yesterday with the first 6 in microscopic lettering. Take all UP Govt cars. They all are in Devanagri (illegal) and read Uttar Pradesh in place of UP! Need I say more. Even the enforcement of HSRPs has happened when the states were dragged (screaming!) into implementing it.

[Guna]

Originally Posted by abhisheksircar

How does it make a difference if the tint comes from the manufacturer or with the owner's hard earned money if it is within the allowed VLT ?

The thinking must be that it is easier to enforce the car makers to stick to the the prescribed levels of VLT while the moment you allow the aftermarket films, it gets difficult to check every car on street (on ongoing basis) and enforce the guidelines.

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by S2!!!

n.



The problem is most people here are the ones who have put in the extra dark tints to give their car a 'cool' look or stay cool from the heat around, having absolute disregard for the law and taking advantage of the fact that the cops let them go without taking any action. They end up spending 4 or 5-digit figures on getting these films applied and are the ones who are criticising the fact that they have to peel off the illegal film. But if the government is taking a step to curb crime (specially in a place like Delhi) then I think we should support it rather than criticise and make such a big fuss about it.).

do you have any statistics to prove this? Or you are just assuming that people who are complaining about this put illegal films.
I had 70% VLT film on the rear as well as side in the indica. I did not go for a 50% VLT. Most cars in my office parking also had very light films, with atleast 70% VLT.

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

Contrary to your thoughts, many people here are honest. Maybe, you have mostly associated with people who were braking the law.

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

What has happened here.
Supreme court has passed a judgement, instead of the directing the parliament to modify the law. 70% VLT for front and back, and 50% VLT

Just because police is incompetent in getting equipment to enforce a law, a law has gotten superceded. Such things are good in Banana republics. I would still like to believe I do not live in a banana republic(contrary to lot of evidence).
Hence the opposition.

[New.Novice]

Originally Posted by S2!!!

when you say that even the other guys having lighter films are suffering because of this but honestly this rule is not going to affect the lighter film guys (atleast in Mumbai) considering the fact that almost every car on the road here wears films and only a few are totally black (who are the ones who may face the heat).

S2!!!. In the ideal world what you are saying is a truth. But lets face it, do you think the guys who got all those pitch dark black films on their fancy SUV's and alikes are going to "face the heat"? I bet not. If they had the muscles to have it installed when it was already illegal, supreme court ruling or not, they would still get away with it. Don't tell me our police force, on the backing of a supreme court ruling, all of a sudden would get the courage to stop them and take it off thier cars.

What this order has done is to leave people like me, who got these films strictly as per the applicable standards, at the mercy of these same police mens who now have a license to stop me and fine me as long as I have this totally-legal-thing-at-the-time-of-purchase on my car.

If you want to see how police gives two hoots to a supreme court ruling, come and see hundreds of trucks carrying stones from aravali mining every night here in NCR. Suprme court banned it a long ago.

[S2!!!]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

do you have any statistics to prove this? Or you are just assuming that people who are complaining about this put illegal films.

Was just editing the post when I read your reply. I do understand the plight of the guys who have legal films and are made to peel em off due to the vague law passed and also agree that the cops should have been stricter from the time they first noticed a vehicle with illegal tints rather than letting go and wait for such a rule to be enforced.

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!

[abhisheksircar]

Originally Posted by S2!!!

but honestly this rule is not going to affect the lighter film guys (atleast in Mumbai) considering the fact that almost every car on the road here wears films and only a few are totally black (who are the ones who may face the heat).

With the above directions, we partially allow this writ
petition and prohibit use of black films of any percentage VLT
upon the safety glasses, windscreens (front and rear) and side
glasses. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Quote from the supreme court verdict. And the verdict is not localized to any state or region. In short, no film of any VLT is legal. Now that's what irks me.

Originally Posted by Guna

The thinking must be that it is easier to enforce the car makers to stick to the the prescribed levels of VLT while the moment you allow the aftermarket films, it gets difficult to check every car on street (on ongoing basis) and enforce the guidelines.

I guess you are right, but our manufacturers should also be guided with terms which are consumer friendly. Have the glasses tinted to permitted VLT which is UV safe.

[tasuray]

.sourav is right. Kolkata Police had taken action against black sun films a few years back but not for fixing it rather against the dark films. Norms are already prevailing to fine for films beyond the specified VLT limits. I have not seen any action by KP against the recent SC verdict against fixing of sun films. Actually the high Govt. officials, politicians and judges who used travel in 'lal bati' cars are always exempted from any rules all over the country.So they don't have any problem whether there is sun films or not. This is a problem for cattle class so nobody bothers.

[ameaa]

I am more worried about getting the film removed without damaging the glasses and defoggers than this rule. Also the same privacy can be achieved by using the removable nets which are available in the market. I hope thats not illegal.

[CareFreeKid]

Its a law passed by Supreme Court all right, but if it was sooo correct, and there was no one who could oppose it or appeal against, there would not be a provision to file an appeal against it.

We also have speed limits, which are also ridiculous. 80 kmph on Pune-Mumbai expressway, who are we kidding? No one sticks to the limits even in narrow city streets, forget the highway, and the Police also tolerates this. Does that not cause fatal accidents? Is taking someone's life less severe than the crimes cited in the PIL which was the seed for this bizarre ruling.

Also, given that cops have to scratch to verify if the glasses are tinted or have sun-films, is proof enough that even though the visibility is good enough, we have to remove the sun-films. Its absurd, totally weird. If you can see through it, it should be good enough. I also feel, that one line "...no other material can be used over safety glass.." is the culprit. It should be checked what is the level of tint on the judge's cars.

And its clear that the courts did not factor in the added damage many of us would incur as a result of removing films from the rear glass and possibly damaging the defogger. Add to that possibility of scratching the other glasses.

Sorry for venting the frustration, but I needed to.

CFK

[msdivy]

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.

First time I actually heard that someone say this law actually stops crime. If somebody is planning crime, they will go to a secluded place or will avoid cars. What about nights, when its anyway dark inside?

On the contrary, clear glasses will give clear idea of who is inside the car and the stuff they are carrying. Somebody might be going to a wedding with the jewelry, kids might be in the backseat, office goers might be carrying laptops, tablets, which would have been discreet (with sun films) will now be clearly visible. It will help criminals plan better.

[Irish]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

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

What has happened here.
Supreme court has passed a judgement, instead of the directing the parliament to modify the law. 70% VLT for front and back, and 50% VLT

Just because police is incompetent in getting equipment to enforce a law, a law has gotten superceded. Such things are good in Banana republics. I would still like to believe I do not live in a banana republic(contrary to lot of evidence).
Hence the opposition.

Hi Tanveer,

Wanted to share a clarification on the role of judiciary in India:

Sabyasachi Mukharji, C.J.in C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee, the court said that the role of the judge is not merely to interpret the law but also to lay new norms of law and to mould the law to suit the changing social and economic scenario to make the ideals enshrined in the Constitution meaningful and a reality. The society demands active judicial roles which formerly were considered exceptional but now a routine.

In S. P. Gupta v. President of India the court observed: The interpretation of every statutory provision must keep pace with changing concept's and values and it must, to the extent to which its language permits or rather does not prohibit, suffer adjustments through judicial interpretation so as to accord with the requirements of the fast changing society which is undergoing rapid social and economic transformation.

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.

We shall respect such orders and if we are not satisfied then we can always file a review petition in the full bench.


Cheers!
Irish

[mayankk]

Originally Posted by himanshugoswami

Ask those very same friends of yours if they follow the law of their adopted land to teh "T". i can bet they do.

So, if the same is done by all (or most) in India, a lot of our problems will go away as well.

the law has always been very clear on tints. its only that most of us chose to violate it with the chalta hai attitude....question is, would you show the same scant disregard for the law in a western country or the middle east? NO....

I agree the SC judgement is flawed, but consider what brought this on in the first place? if people were to scrupulously adhere to teh legal limits of tints, this may not have happened in the first place.

The law has been very clear, ok.
They tell us 70kph is the limit,i adhere.
I don't see any car company claiming " buy my car, it will easily go past that speed."
They don't carry adverts that condone speeding.

On the other hand, pick up a magazine, auto.
Last quarter is filled with adverts for films. Still is, after all this has happened.
I would call the film manufacturers anarchists then, and the magazines are promoting anarchy.
Prosecute them as well.

If I had to go to some dark alley to buy the film, get it installed from a guy operating in a dingy garage across the border, I'll willingly be a lawbreaker, but in this scenario,i am sorry.
I'm forced to say that the system has misled me.

[girishglg]

Originally Posted by hrman

One of my friends got the films removed at BTP's camp at Indira nagar BDA complex. He is very happy with the work done on his car. They professionally removed it from all sides and even from the defogger. It took some 15 minutes. And he was not charged a paisa. This was yesterday at around 9.30 am. Any other inputs from the others in bangalore who would have got it removed by BTP's camps? And any ideas on where exactly is it in Kanteerava stadium. My office is quite close by, so I can just go there and get it done. Else will do a DIY tomorrow

This must be a lucky case of getting the job done well and at no cost but others do not seem to be that lucky afterall.

Originally Posted by keyank

hrman

when i noticed they were removing it shabbily not even spraying water to the film just scratched at one corner and trying to pull it down. while i wanted to specifically see how they would remove the film from a defogger, there were actually no vehicle (which were being removed had defogger)

Was passing by the Koramangala / Audugodi police grounds where the cops have set up a sunfilm removal drive and to my surprise saw the cops themselves removing the films. I was surprised at first and had hoped that some professional guys would do the job. They were using the crudest of the implements, just a paper knife to rip the films. It seemed like they were absoluting hating what they were doing and were randomly peeling off the films.

On enquiring a cop about the timings, he hastily said it would be till 5 PM everyday. Seems like these folk instead of manning the traffic were asked to do this unwanted job. Still surprised I said to another cop that I did not expect you guys to do this job and would get some one else to do it, pat came the reply sarcastically - We are the guys who will do this correctly, who else will?

In a way pity those cops who have to follow the orders of their bosses without saying a word!

Wanted to take some pics but saw the cops all around and yes in a BAD mood, so refrained from doing so. BTW there were just 5-6 cars in the afternoon and not much of a rush. IMO it is better to do a DIY job than to go to one of these camps and you will come across some pissed off cop who will rip your screens out.

Originally Posted by manikjeet

Count me in.Lawyer would be no problem as my grand father is a retired justice and my father is a lawyer

Any developments from the time this has been posted, surely many of us would be happy to help in what ever means we can.

Also what about the scene in other cities of our vast land (except Mum, Del, Blr) or is it that just these big one have the cops all geared up to 'follow the orders'.

It would be good for BHPians to let know the ground situation in other places and state capitals so that we would know in right earnest if this drive has begun across the country.

[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.
I have very light tints on my linea (3M RE 70). BUT, when I saw the side windows glasses, the OE already reads 70% visibility. It means adding up a Sunfilm further reduced the visibility??? While getting it done the 3M car detailing guy said it is all india RTO accepted. I know I am 99.99% wrong but need a proper reply.

Also, how will the traffic cops will get to know the visibility factor. Or are they going to be adamant about 'any' kind of sunfilms bcoz of the two sentence confusion?