[mayankk]

Originally Posted by gvivek75

The order has affected all of us in one way or the other but seeing some of the recent posts in the thread, I wonder whether we are moving to irrational territory. I do understand there is inconvenience around Glare/ UV rays etc. but what of these reasons below?

Sir, you are great.
For the life of me I cant figure out if youre joshing, or being sincere.

[gvivek75]

@Daewood

Oh well, Godrej locks, Bajaj Sunny, i10 and Estilos !! Let me try in the context of the same examples


1. Godrej locks vs. cheap ones - not a very good analogy there. Let's leave it at that.

2. Bajaj Sunny - Yes you are right, better alternative to being grabbed and touched all over in crowded public transport. Does it still prevent anybody from seeing/staring at you while you are riding? Or the lewd remarks coming your way?

3. Estilo/ i10 - Doesn't matter if she paid for it or dad, it still is a choice of personal transport vs. public with the idea being to avoid all the hassle as in point 2 above. In this case you are better off than Bajaj Sunny because you also have air-conditioned comfort now. Can you also ask for dark tints/ privacy as a matter of right because you own a car? Harassment of girls on our city streets is one of the many ills in our society (someone or the other close to us has invariably faced this and we have suffered silently), but does it directly relate to the SC ruling on window tints? Why is this reasoning being brought here in this thread is what I was wondering. Also if you are really following the law, 50/70 VLT on sides and front is pretty see through as it is, so where is the so called privacy?

Also please do not mix emotions and lose perspective on the whole issue. Films below specified visibility were not allowed, but people went ahead and broke the law knowingly or unknowingly. Despite the rule being there for ages, it was never properly implemented except NCR and Chandigarh to some extent (that I am aware of). Now SC is trying to fix this by moving to the other extreme by banning all aftermarket films. Allowing provision of tints at manufacturer level as proposed by SC is actually not such a bad idea. Current lot of cars which do not come with factory provided tints may lose out, but in couple of years this will get sorted out as manufacturers themselves will start giving this option at the time of ordering your car, and nobody will remember it as 'sky has fallen' that we are making this to be.

@PatchyBoy, my intention was not to further the socialist cause as it seems to have been inferred (bottled water and all that), but to simply point out that dark shades beyond already permissible limits is not a matter of right which automatically comes to us because we bought a car. This is what some posts seemed to suggest - stuff visible to thiefs, getting unwanted stares etc. Protecting children from harmful UV has nothing to do with the above line of argument.

In the court's ruling, allowing people to fix legally permissible shades with primary focus on UV protection would have been ideal - which is what you are also saying. I am also in the same boat with a 1.5 yr old son and am not too happy with the decision as well. But this provision of legally permissible films has been around and always available to us. It is just that some of us went overboard and broke the law which has led to the situation today. Yes it is an extreme step which the SC took maybe due to lack of effective enforcement mechanism - law has been around for 3 decades, many chose to ignore it.

Was it necessary? Is it causing more harm than good? Why not attack bigger problems first? Why target innocent law abiding citizens? First catch the politicos. Well the list is endless and doesn't lead anywhere

[Daewood]

Originally Posted by gvivek75

But this provision of legally permissible films has been around and always available to us. It is just that some of us went overboard and broke the law which has led to the situation today. Yes it is an extreme step which the SC took maybe due to lack of effective enforcement mechanism - law has been around for 3 decades, many chose to ignore it.

Do you mean to say the 3 decade old law allows for sunfilms within the stipulated VLT. If so the Supreme Court cannot interfere with that, because in the Indian Constitution the courts can only uphold a law. They don't have powers to create or modify laws.

Allowing provision of tints at manufacturer level as proposed by SC is actually not such a bad idea. Current lot of cars which do not come with factory provided tints may lose out, but in couple of years this will get sorted out as manufacturers themselves will start giving this option at the time of ordering your car

Yes, they will start offering 50% visibility windows with Titanum ++ variants and loot an extra 1.5 Lakh for that. Crony capitalism at it's best.

[Mad Max]

Originally Posted by gvivek75

Also please do not mix emotions and lose perspective on the whole issue. Films below specified visibility were not allowed, but people went ahead and broke the law knowingly or unknowingly.

Allowing provision of tints at manufacturer level as proposed by SC is actually not such a bad idea.

In the court's ruling, allowing people to fix legally permissible shades with primary focus on UV protection would have been ideal - which is what you are also saying. Yes it is an extreme step which the SC took maybe due to lack of effective enforcement mechanism - law has been around for 3 decades, many chose to ignore it.

With due respect, when it comes to the privacy of myself and my family, I better involve my emotions!

People don't really calculate VLT percentages when they go and fix something on their car. How many people would you know who actually knew about this VLT% before this ruling? People (at least a majority of them) don't go about breaking the law knowingly. Especially in a case like this. We walk in to a dealer, he shows us what he's got, we pick one, install is done, we pay and drive away. We really don't get into the nitty gritty of it. If we really needed to, then each citizen would need a "Constitution 101" education session!

Allowing only tints AND sun-films with permissible VLT% at manufacturer level is what the Supreme Court MUST have done. Does this also mean that the manufacturers have violated the law? If you see the markings on the glass, it says "minimum 70% VLT". Why can't it be an absolute number with no minimum or maximum? The manufacturers conveniently decided that minimum could be zero tint.

And why this shyness to ban non-compliant film from entering the country or being manufactured here? If the SC is so uptight about the use of sun-film, then why can't they be equally uptight about the source of this whole problem? And if they allow 70% tinted glass, what difference does it make if I put 70% sun-film? Both do the same thing, one is colored glass, the other is layered on top of the glass. This, in my opinion, is just plain hypocrisy.

If the law doesn't act as expected, are we the citizens, who pay for this law & order department, expected to throw away our conveniences because of their shoddy work? I think not.

Anyways, beating a dead horse to death, I am still hoping (against hope) that the SC will see that its ruling has done more harm than help and will revoke this. And put a stringent import / manufacturing control in place for lower VLT films. And instruct manufacturers to provide options to the end-customer. Do you want tinted glass with your car? Yes? Ok, this will cost you 20k extra. Can you not afford 20k? Ok, here's sun film at 7k for your car. Do you not want either? We'll reduce the price by a x amount.

[spindoc]

Originally Posted by PatchyBoy

Source

Are you trying to say that we should not have used sun control film to protect our children here, because the road side urchin is exposed to the sun all day long? None of us here are advocating the we should not follow the SC ruling and if you see the other thread on this subject, the poll very clearly indicates that no one here is wanting to disrespect the SC ruling.

The question is, what is the objective of the PIL? Was it well thought of, taking all aspects and affected users into consideration? Do we have an effective enforcement mechanism? Was this really necessary? Did this whole exercise do more harm than help?

I am sure you do not think twice before buying a bottle of water on your road trips. You do not hesitate for a minute and consider that more than 50% of our population do not have access to clean drinking water. Why not? Because it is available and because you can afford it, not to mention also makes you feel safe and comfortable.

The same applies for the car users who were using sun control films. I do not think they are whining.

Rajan

The law treats everyone equally. So there is no question of "privacy on the road" as far as the law is concerned - that is what gvivek75 may have indicated. Even before this verdict, the general understanding was that sunfilms needed to allow upto 70% VLT and those who wanted to stay "legal" ensured they did not go for darker films. These people are not guilty of anything - they installed the films because they (and everyone else) thought they were allowed. However, there was a large no. of people who broke this assumed rule (of 70% min. VLT), installing all sorts of dark and reflective films. This situation may have been the real reason why this PIL resulted in this kind of a verdict.


The SC has made it clear that it thinks the existing MV laws have been well thought out and have taken various factors into consideration and hence anything not mentioned cannot be assumed to be allowed.

Originally Posted by klassics45

Yeah, i think they are targeting vehicles with dark film. They were in action near velachery mahindra showroom and all the vehicles that they stopped, were the ones with dark films.

I spoke to a Traffic Sergeant yesterday and he told me that the drive would intensify in the next few days in Chennai. The fines are: Rs.100, 300 and 1000 for the first, second and third times respectively.

By the way, the verdict says:
26. The manufacturer of the vehicle may manufacture the vehicles with tinted glasses which have Visual Light Transmission (VLT) of safety glasses windscreen (front and rear) as 70 per cent VLT and side glasses as 40 per cent VLT, respectively. No black film or any other material can be pasted on the windscreens and side glasses of a vehicle.

This says VLT of 40 per cent is to be ensured for the side glasses. I guess manufacturers may start applying darker tints to windows from now. Does that mean it is better to hold off purchases until there is an update from the manufacturers / dealers?

[Daewood]

Originally Posted by spindoc

The law treats everyone equally. So there is no question of "privacy on the road" as far as the law is concerned

If that is so, why does the law allow people to wear burkha? Do the lawmakers have the guts to ban burkhas like they did in that european country.
The whole idea of stopping criminals driving around in cars with dark sunfilms goes for toss, when you can't stop them from wearing burkhas. With this provision under law, anyone from a Chota Rajan to Tiger Memon can roam around freely.

[spindoc]

^ Sorry, I was speaking only in context. I do not have an opinion on this.

[drmohitg]

Originally Posted by Mad Max

With due respect, when it comes to the privacy of myself and my family, I better involve my emotions!

People don't really calculate VLT percentages when they go and fix something on their car. How many people would you know who actually knew about this VLT% before this ruling? People (at least a majority of them) don't go about breaking the law knowingly. Especially in a case like this. We walk in to a dealer, he shows us what he's got, we pick one, install is done, we pay and drive away. We really don't get into the nitty gritty of it. If we really needed to, then each citizen would need a "Constitution 101" education session!

Sorry I did not get your point here. Breaking the law happily and feigning ignorance about the same is not something to be proud off. When there is a law you need to follow it, period. The rule regarding VLT till now was very much there and most people knew about it too. Every dealer providing sunfilms gives you the data having the VLT etc. Now its your responsibility to choose the right product that is legal. But most people just choose sun films for enhancing the car's looks which is ridiculous. Sunfilms were never meant to provide you with privacy from the very beginning. Otherwise they would have been named darkfilms or privacy films maybe. Sunfilms are just meant to protect you from sunrays and the resultant heat. Most people till date kept on breaking the law and the cops too were not much interested in taking any corrective action. Living in Delhi I can relate with the sentiment of dark tints increasing the chances of criminal activities because it does happen on our roads every day. 8 out of 10 cars which are being driven rash have jet black tints.

Anyways without deviating from the topic:
The SC should have ideally continued with the earlier law and rather tried to put a stop on the sale of any sunfilm beyond the permissible limit.

[gvivek75]

Originally Posted by Daewood

Do you mean to say the 3 decade old law allows for sunfilms within the stipulated VLT. If so the Supreme Court cannot interfere with that, because in the Indian Constitution the courts can only uphold a law. They don't have powers to create or modify laws.

Yes right but minor corrections there. There are 2 specific rules we all need to be aware of.

Rule 100 of Central Motor Vehicles Act (1988) talks about laminated safety glass conforming to specifications of Indian standards as well as visual light transmission of minimum 70% front and back, and minimum 50% on the sides. This is the one which car manufacturers are supposed to follow and they already do.

Then there are Sections 52 and 53 of the same Act which talk about restrictions on alterations to the vehicles which are in variance with specifications as provided by the manufacturer (52), and powers given to authorities for suspension/ cancellation of registration itself unless the vehicle was restored to its original condition (53).

Now coming to the specific PIL in question, the case was for making 100% VLT as mandatory which the courts said NO to because it would have meant going against Rule 100 - as you rightly pointed out, the court could not and did not modify the law, only upheld it. So 70/50 it stayed.

Since by installing aftermarket sunfilms Section 52 was being violated in principle, the authorities could penalize you any time but they didn't always bother. Lighter sunfilms got away, darker ones were sometimes stopped and fined. Some states/cities have been more pro-active than the others on this matter so it's not like enforcement has not been happening till now. But crux of the story is changing the VLT post manufacturing was illegal in '88 as much as it is in 2012.

Finally what the SC has done is upheld both Rule 100 and Sec 52, and stopped aftermarket alteration (installing sunfilms). In case of VVIPs/Z/Z Plus, while the SC did note that allowing dark glasses to continue would have clearly been in violation of the above, but they did not wish to encroach upon safety/ security and left it to the prerogative of Home Ministry at Centre and respective states

Since the SC neither created or modified any law but merely upheld it, those of you who were hoping to see a reversal/ relaxation in the order - it's not going to happen. Only way out is if and when the parliament decides to change the Motor Vehicles Act itself. Or hope your neghbourhood cops go easy on enforcement.

[pypkmsrikanth]

In the Chennai Traffic Police FB page it was clearly mentioned only tints done at the manufacturing stage is allowed, no pasting of films of what so ever Visibility is allowed.

So if my car windshield & windows are of 100% VLT then I would have to live with it how ever hot this year's summer in Chennai is.

[sary]

Originally Posted by sary

Yes, It is indeed one of those canned mails and I am not going to get fooled by that. Well I await the dealership to call in, hopefully by today. Here will be my demands:
1. Replacement of all damaged beadings
2. Replacement for all round glasses. I'll push for it, but feels like they might just polish and give it.
3. I need my "Immobilizer Anti-Theft" sticker back at any cost on both driver and co passenger side glass

Originally Posted by spadix

Yes, sary. That's what I would think going by my experience.

However, it's a different time and problem of an altogether different dimension that you have approached them with. I hope there's a positive outcome in your case. No harm in pushing them as hard as you can, so please redouble your efforts. Have you gotten in touch with the GM, Service of this workshop?

Sorry for going OT.

Regards,
spadix

Originally Posted by sary

Well, not yet as I had to rush back on saturday and it was already too late. I shall talk to the GM today and keep you informed.

Yes kingofkings, they have been given their dose for the shabby work. However, I am yet to talk to the service GM, will do that sometime today. Will post by evening on any developments.

Regards,
Sary

Well rajni, I was very sure to go 3M way at HSR, however its my bad that I got to know 3M is no more doing this job. Hence I choose to play safe with the dealership.

Regards,
Sary

Hi all,

An update on the shoddy work done by Whitefield Honda Motors while removing the sun films.
The dealer called me immediately on 23-May after that 'canned' response from Honda and I fixed an appointment to drop my car by 26-May. The car was ready today with new set of all round biddings and also the 'Anti Theft Engine Immobilizer' sticker is back on both driver and passanger side glass window.
The good part was, when I dropped my car at the dealership there was utter silence (even I kept my cool) and they just accepted the car as is and promised me the delivery within one or two days.
End comes to my sleepless nights!!

Now in the process to draft them a mail appreciating the kind of work done by the dealer, SE and attention given to my concern.

Personal opinion: Whitefield Honda Motors is one of the most sensible dealers I have come across so far who truely believes in customer excellence.

Mods, Apologies for being

Regards,
Sary

[PatchyBoy]

Originally Posted by gvivek75

Yes right but minor corrections there. There are 2 specific rules we all need to be aware of.

With all due respect, have you even read the previous posts in this thread? Do you think this thread has grown to 2150+ posts, without bothering to analyze the judgement, the PIL and more importantly the relevant sections of CMRV?

If you haven't done so, please do. Some of us here have spent lots of time/energy/effort in understanding the whole thing, explaining it to the forum. There are posts that even talk of glass manufature, properties, etc.

Originally Posted by gvivek75

Now coming to the specific PIL in question, the case was for making 100% VLT as mandatory which the courts said NO to because it would have meant going against Rule 100 - as you rightly pointed out, the court could not and did not modify the law, only upheld it. So 70/50 it stayed.

The court could not have allowed 100% VLT glass, because there is no such thing. The petitioner did not know this. It is unfortunate that the court did not dismiss the petition on these grounds.

Originally Posted by gvivek75

Since the SC neither created or modified any law but merely upheld it, those of you who were hoping to see a reversal/ relaxation in the order - it's not going to happen. Only way out is if and when the parliament decides to change the Motor Vehicles Act itself. Or hope your neghbourhood cops go easy on enforcement.

This has been repeated so many times in this thread, I have lost count. The contention of most is simple - If 70/50 is the rule, then why can I not have a film that rejects heat and UV radiation, without reducing the VLT to non-compliance levels? Ex facie, sounds reasonable.

While I do agree that ignorance is no excuse, who is responsible for ensuring that a vehicle complies with CMRV? The manufacturer. If it does not, then the vehicle will never see a showroom. Once it is sold, the onus is transferred to the owner. As I had posted earlier on this very same thread, how were the manufacturers allowed to manufacture films that are not compliant and how come the vendors were allowed to stock, sell and install the same? You really believe that the average car user has the time and resources to find out if he is breaking the law by installing these films? And who is responsible for making him aware? I am sure you will agree that 99.9% of car owner did not install dark films to either break the law or to commit some illegal activities in the car.

Unfortunate turn of events. My opinion has always been that this PIL was not thoroughly thought through by the petitioner. The reasons quoted by the petitioner are trivial. What surprises me is the SC ruling.

Just a few salient points:
1. Did anyone even think of how this non-biodegradable waste film can be disposed safely, without causing long term problems for the very AAM ADMI the petitioner is trying to save?
2. Did anyone do any kind of research about the effects of UV rays?
3. Did anyone question what is "RTO approved film"?

Sad.

Rajan

[spadix]

Originally Posted by PatchyBoy

What modification? It is just a polish which gets washed off easily. It is not like it is a chemical treatment which modifies the molecular composition of glass or something

Technically that's the same with sun control film also.

Instead of "washed off easily", it gets "pulled off" (easily sometimes).

It doesn't affect the molecular composition of the glass.

However it does cost a fair bit more to put back on compared to the polish.

So if an intelligent cop were to follow the SC verdict in letter and in spirit (there, that's the 3rd time I've used that turn of phrase already in this thread)...

Regards,
spadix

[PatchyBoy]

Originally Posted by spadix

Technically that's the same with sun control film also.

Instead of "washed off easily", it gets "pulled off" (easily sometimes).

It doesn't affect the molecular composition of the glass.

However it does cost a fair bit more to put back on compared to the polish.

So if an intelligent cop were to follow the SC verdict in letter and in spirit (there, that's the 3rd time I've used that turn of phrase already in this thread)...

Regards,
spadix

I have to agree with you. In letter and spirit (there, I used it too) it is not compliant. I will not argue if an intelligent cop were to question me provided he/she has access to a VLT meter

Rajan

[gvivek75]

Originally Posted by PatchyBoy

With all due respect, have you even read the previous posts in this thread? Do you think this thread has grown to 2150+ posts, without bothering to analyze the judgement, the PIL and more importantly the relevant sections of CMRV?
Rajan

Well Sir my point exactly.

The thread grew to 145 pages and 2k plus posts with the judgement and underlying rules and acts being discussed threadbare, but why do we still get posts on privacy, thefts and other totally unrelated matters - which is what got me started in the first place. The whole point is that there is huge frustration among people at the inconvenience being caused due to this ruling and being expressed in all sorts of ways. If we had stuck to the main topic, the thread itself wouldn't be half the size it is. Agree?

And yes, I have been following the thread from Day 1. I was away from my car travelling on work and didn't feel the immediate heat (literally) as other members did. But it was clear to me that as soon as I return, I will need to remove my sunfilms as well.

Originally Posted by PatchyBoy

You really believe that the average car user has the time and resources to find out if he is breaking the law by installing these films? And who is responsible for making him aware? I am sure you will agree that 99.9% of car owner did not install dark films to either break the law or to commit some illegal activities in the car.
Rajan

Key word is enforcement or lack of it. I cannot speak on behalf of the average joe but at least many on this forum would have known the concept of light transmission or transparency? Even then if they went ahead and installed those films, this event was waiting to happen. If the rule was being enforced uniformly across the country from Day 1, none of this would have been necessary in the first place. In that case even the average joe would have known what NOT to do.

One last question. After the SC ruling, now does the average car user know the law about tints? If yes, then SC did succeed in imparting this education wouldn't you say?