[rajshenoy]

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

I believe you meant extra gas connections, not extra cylinders. Each connection comes with max 2 cylinders which is OK.
What is not OK is to have more than 1 connection in the same name, which is what I believe they are curbing. I dont see anything wrong in that since it is an illegal practice anyway.

Coming back to topic :
While it is indeed loads of money (and material) going down the drain for all those that have sun-films on their cars, I just hope this is properly enforced and not a temporary thing. Else it will only end up inconveniencing motorists and fattening the wallets of cops(state) and film-fixers.

Totally agree with you. Especially the second point. Mostly the Cabs/MUV that have those darkest tints block the visibility of the road completely.

Without the sun films, i guess it will become so much better to view road to avoid any sudden breaking.

Only question is, how many of these idiots are going to follow the law ? They keep breaking it anyway

[sumathindra]

Personally I think if implemented properly this is one of the many ways we can improve driviing in our country. I am told by my cousins in the US that tints are illegal there (not sure).

Night driving will be easier, better visibility on morons on the road and ofcourse the cops will see inside and take a judgemental call to let go the car in case of any naka bandi's

[mahadev_kc]

Post deleted by the Team-BHP Support : Please do NOT post one-liners that add little or no informational value to the thread. We need your co-operation to maintain the overall quality of this forum.

Please read our rules before proceeding any further.

[aroonanand]

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

Coming back to topic :
While it is indeed loads of money (and material) going down the drain for all those that have sun-films on their cars, I just hope this is properly enforced and not a temporary thing. Else it will only end up inconveniencing motorists and fattening the wallets of cops(state) and film-fixers.

Advantages I see due to this law are

1) safer driving
2) better visibility for those behind

3) And possibly people would respect others on the highway by not using hi-beams.

Agree with you on points 1 and 2, but on point 3, this will only worsen the existing situation. Do you think the idiotic morons that drive the Tata Sumos, Tempo Travellers, Indicabs, Wingers and Govt buses will even bother to dim their headlights, sun film or no sun film? If they had even 1% grey matter within their heads instead of dog poop, they would. But the reality, IMO, is they will not.. And with plain glass on all sides in a sedan with the high beam of a Sumo / TT / Winger behind you, driving is only going to get more painful. Now, with sun films, the blinding light is partially filtered but without sunfilms, it will be the opposite.

I believe this is a very hasty decision by the SC, without considering any of the merits / demerits of the PIL. Banning opaque tints / films or those beyond a particular limit is sensible but banning all kind of sun films irrespective of VLTs is just ridiculous and irrational, to put it mildly. and the less said about implementation the better... Am sure no BMTC volvo, private buses, police vehicles, anyone remotely connected with any political party will remove the films.. and it is the tax paying aam-aadmi which has to suffer (now doesnt this appear way too often in India??) Long live Democracy !!!

[download2live]

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

I just hope this is properly enforced and not a temporary thing.

Keep hoping.

Originally Posted by aroonanand

I believe this is a very hasty decision by the SC, without considering any of the merits / demerits of the PIL.

Really? Just go through the timeline of this whole sordid saga.
Let me refresh it for you:

1. A dummy for industry files a PIL.
2. SC passes an order, at peak of summer, just before going for a long leave.
3. Just to pretend that they are concerned, a Sunfilm maker reportedly files a counter petition one or two days before SC goes for leave.

The whole month of June heat to be forced upon the Tax Paying Cattle.
After that the order gets reversed or stayed leading to a bumper harvest for the companies.

[rajatsingh78]

I have pasted the supreme court order in my post -
http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/indian...ml#post2764097

Some people have been saying that this is a silly order that comes every summer etc. etc. guys this is an order passed by THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, which means it is a law now and can only be reverted in case someone challanges this order in the same court but some other bench of judges.

[quadbike]

Can't the parliament amend the act permitting the use of films.

[cuboid]

Originally Posted by rajatsingh78

I have pasted the supreme court order in my post -
http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/indian...ml#post2764097

Some people have been saying that this is a silly order that comes every summer etc. etc. guys this is an order passed by THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, which means it is a law now and can only be reverted in case someone challanges this order in the same court but some other bench of judges.

OT : Rulings/Judgements of a court are NOT law. They are interpretations of the law. A law can ONLY be made in the Parliament or Legislative assembly.

[icecoolsam]

Originally Posted by rajshenoy

Can you please share the link ?
Both Facebook and the official Bangalore traffic police website still talk about the 19th May deadline.

The date has been moved to 5th June now, check out BTP face page and I feel like a moron for removing my 4k worth 3m today.

[selfdrive]

Originally Posted by rajatsingh78

Some people have been saying that this is a silly order that comes every summer etc. etc. guys this is an order passed by THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, which means it is a law now and can only be reverted in case someone challanges this order in the same court but some other bench of judges.

Originally Posted by cuboid

OT : Rulings/Judgements of a court are NOT law. They are interpretations of the law. A law can ONLY be made in the Parliament or Legislative assembly.

Thats not OT by any means. Bang on topic.

The supreme court can make recommendations/ suggestions but a proposed law has to be tabled and passed by parliament to make it a law.
I doubt though if this can be argued with the cops who are enforcing this ruling with gusto!

Originally Posted by download2live

Really? Just go through the timeline of this whole sordid saga. Let me refresh it for you:

1. A dummy for industry files a PIL.
2. SC passes an order, at peak of summer, just before going for a long leave.
3. Just to pretend that they are concerned, a Sunfilm maker reportedly files a counter petition one or two days before SC goes for leave.

If he wanted to be really useful that PIL 'hero/ crusader' could have filed something about illegal mining or embezzlement of funds from irrigation projects leading to drought or taxes on fuels. There are many worse crimes leading to deaths directly and indirectly and looting of national wealth than sunfilms.

Is there no sense of priority for bringing up such cases? Or any file that now says national security will automatically be brought to the topmost priority? I am as concerned about national security as any law abiding citizen (which I am!) but this is ridiculous. There are so many more important issues to be tackled and what are we prioritising?

Originally Posted by Pallavi

Actually, the Supreme Court ruling is a clearer interpretation of the existing law. So it didnt pass a law. Rather, provided clarity to the already existing one.

Really? I thought the earlier law was 70/50 visibility for front/ rear sunfilms. A clearer interpretation would restating the numbers. But here the law has changed, because the visibility part has been replaced by no sunfilms in general. To me it looks like a amendment.

The only reason for this is that we dont have the infrastructure to check each and every car for visibility %. But thats just an excuse for lack of capability/ capacities in law enforcement.

^^

[Pallavi]

Originally Posted by selfdrive

Thats not OT by any means. Bang on topic.

The supreme court can make recommendations/ suggestions but a proposed law has to be tabled and passed by parliament to make it a law.
I doubt though if this can be argued with the cops who are enforcing this ruling with gusto!

Actually, the Supreme Court ruling is a clearer interpretation of the existing law. So it didnt pass a law. Rather, provided clarity to the already existing one.

But i am still shocked and angry by the sudden banning of the tints and enforcing of the same without giving a reasonable time limit and options to replace the existing glass.

Originally Posted by selfdrive

If he wanted to be really useful that PIL 'hero/ crusader' could have filed something about illegal mining or embezzlement of funds from irrigation projects leading to drought or taxes on fuels. There are many worse crimes leading to deaths directly and indirectly and looting of national wealth than sunfilms.

He is being useful to a select few. But for that he (mis)used the PIL option.

[S_U_N]

Originally Posted by selfdrive

Is there no sense of priority for bringing up such cases?

^^

I have the same question. How does such a case get entertained at SC level? Does SC have the bandwidth to accommodate such issues whose impact is far lesser than issues related to corruption, state politics or crime?

BTW: Why are the lawyers on Team-BHP silent?
Edit: Was there someone defending the use of sun-films during the hearing?

Edit2: There is a lot of backlog with Supreme Court. See the number of cases pending here.

[VikrantD]

There is absolutely no activity in Mumbai/Thane. This thread is filled with Delhi/Bangalore cases. Is Mumbai police going to implement it??

[SLK]

Originally Posted by Pallavi

Actually, the Supreme Court ruling is a clearer interpretation of the existing law. So it didnt pass a law. Rather, provided clarity to the already existing one.

Clearer? I think it's stained with lack of facts, understanding and objective. By this logic, I can interpret any law to read anything!

On a separate note I took pictures of my car's film, which is a V-kool 70% VLT and its on a glass which says transparency 70% MIN.

Look at the two pictures and tell me, do you think this should be illegal?

Also, has someone actually measured the VLT of a factory glass that says 70% MIN? I think the MIN part is the catch! which might be measured as VLT when light passes at an angle and not straight.

Either-ways, even if a window with this visibility leads to it being called illegal as per the erstwhile law, I think the law is irrational. I drove this car for a few days after the ban came in place, but DTP didn't notice the film.

These are untouched images taken using my phone, I just had to down-sample them to be uploaded here.

Image one Window is UP

Image two Window is Half way

[selfdrive]

Originally Posted by SLK

Look at the two pictures and tell me, do you think this should be illegal?

I think you should take the picture from the other side of the window for us to be able to comment. The visibility is for the cops from outside.

Edit: I am not good at numbers so not sure what 70% of 70% would be. But I do remember someone here saying it would be 49%. Feel free to correct this, as my memory could be as bad as my math! Just that I dont know it

Re edit: I think the judgement is very clear. No films at all. What we are debating here is that it is not correct and contradicting the existing law (70/50). So perhaps some legal eagle would be able to confirm is such amendments need to be approved by Parliament or can be passed by the honorable SC

Re (I forgot how many!) edit: Buddy, I am not disputing the sunfilm thingy! I am on this side
^^