[sgiitk]

I wish they also catch the official cars, dark glasses, curtains, and the lot!

[Sn1p3r]

Originally Posted by sgiitk

I wish they also catch the official cars, dark glasses, curtains, and the lot!

Only in utopia sir, the officials need their privacy not mere mortals. We do not even need sun protection of 70%.

[mayankk]

Originally Posted by sgiitk

I wish they also catch the official cars, dark glasses, curtains, and the lot!

you read about the ruckus they created about the beacons?
imagine trying to get them to remove tints, or curtains(which is, what, 0% visibility?).

the TP can be armed with umpteen laws to stop anyone, but you cant take away from teh fact, that they will think 10 times before stopping any official GoI vehicle.

[mpksuhas]

Originally Posted by mayankk

I support this.
dark tints are getting TOO dark on the roads.
you can hardly make out whats happening in broad daylight, much less at night.

But, there is a major grouse here.
I read the article.
This like a baans(bamboo), and bansuri(flute) scenario.
autocratic, and dumb as hell.
The supposed justification is since the TP doesnt have instrumentation to check the visibility levels, they have asked for a blanket ban.

Well, I too agree with your view. So there are two scenarios that can emerge out of this now. The same 50% and 70 % rule is upheld that means things go as it is now.

Court can direct all state police departments to make sure they have the adequate electronic devices to detect violaters. How this will change a cop who is standing at a police blockade on a highway middle of no where is anyones guess.
We still have police men in middle of Bangalore traffic who comes and literally smell your breath to check drunken driving. How will this cop make out if your tint is 70% or 80 % ? (May be he will light a matchstick and see how much it is visible )

And in another scenario court may declare all tinted glass as violations, then 3M and lots of cops are going to loose one good business.

[CARDEEP]

I also read the article in TOI this morning & feeling bit sick due to the fact that I got my car glasses covered in legally permitted tints (side 50% VLT & 70% on the front & rear) & the vendor actually handed me a company's certificate for the same VLT ratios.

Sometimes the most stupid decisions come from supposedly the most learned men (our SC judges). IMO there should be recognition of the vendors who supply car glass tints & their products on a pan-India basis to avoid confusion at once for all. At least then the moron cops won't be in a position to challan anybody who is following the rules.

But, I also feel that the intent of the petition & the petitioner is mischievous & just to create panic, confusion & recognition to the advocate in name of PIL. These PILs are disastrous & there should be law for regulation of PILs that unnecessarily burden our country's courts.

[RS_DEL]

Originally Posted by mayankk

I support this.
dark tints are getting TOO dark on the roads.
you can hardly make out whats happening in broad daylight, much less at night.

.

The merit or otherwise of having tints is not going to matter here. Whats going to matter is whether the flat foots aka coppers will get their way here.

Most likely not! Why? Just see the official vehicles drive out of the High court complex or the Supreme court complex in the evenings or the Police HQ. Jet Black tint on the windows and the rear glass. These are the official vehicles. See the personal vehicles of the powerful, a lot of them are the same. They may try to exempt the official vehicles on security considerations, but then that is going to create another ruckus. And what about their personal rides?

I do not know what is the motivation behind this PIL, however now that the petitioner and his advocate have had their day in the sun let us see what happens. My guess is assurances will be given to the court about obtaining the requisite equipment and a RFQ will be floated for equipment . The whole merry circus will go on after a bit of noise.