[Dr.Vikas]

Since long, I always had a feeling that the 3M films (RE50 & RE70 combo) installed in my car were 'much' transparent, but after having read this SC order, I am really at great relief.
Whatsoever, it's now a matter of big question, how seriously the implementation of this order will be carried out? Till then, let's keep the fingers crossed !

[noopster]

I have tinted film on the windows of my Swift but since I bought the car used have no idea whether it is legal or not (suspect the latter). Any idea how to confirm this?

[fast&furious]

You might need a Lux Meter to get the exact VLT value I guess. IMHO, all you have to do is park your car under the sun with the windows rolled up and just check from the outside. If you can see the inside of the car, I think you are very much on the right side of the law .

[Relativity]

I was planning to get 3M CS 35 on my Punto tomorrow because the Chennai sun just makes my AC useless. They said they don't retail CS 50 in Chennai as it is no good in this weather. Can somebody please suggest a cheaper film with legally allowed specs - like Garware or Lumar?

[fast&furious]

@ Relativity
IIRC, Garware Classic is available for around 2k. It offers 40% heat rejection. I'm not so sure about the quality though as I haven't used it.

@noopster
Why not buy one like this? NEW DIGITAL LIGHT METER LUXMETER LX101 LUX WITH LCD | eBay
Will be a handy tool for a TBHP mod.

@Relativity
Just came to know that the Garware classic sun film is not compliant with the rules since there's no 70% film in it for the rear windshield. Garware Classic Lite is compliant with the rules. Comes with 3 years warranty. Costs about 2k (depends on the dealer).

[Harshavarthan]

I too have 3M CS35 in the sides and rear. Can it be pealed off without damaging the windows? I will have to change to CS50.

[fast&furious]

Yes it can be peeled off. But be careful with the rear windshield if there's defogger on it. Go to some sunfilm dealer and ask for retinting. They will replace the current one with the new film of your choice. By the way, always make sure that the dealer has enough tools to do the job and that he is reliable. Some people can really make a mess of it and you will end up with scratched windows and a non-functioning rear defogger. The reliability of the dealer often depends on the city you live.

PS:According to the rule, both front and rear windshields should have 70% VLT. Make sure that you don't install 50% films on the rear windshield. They are allowed on side windows only.

[Sridhar K]

Originally Posted by Relativity

I was planning to get 3M CS 35 on my Punto tomorrow because the Chennai sun just makes my AC useless. They said they don't retail CS 50 in Chennai as it is no good in this weather. Can somebody please suggest a cheaper film with legally allowed specs - like Garware or Lumar?

Why don't you try RE50 which has the same specs as CS35 and cost the same?

[razrman]

Originally Posted by fast&furious

PS:According to the rule, both front and rear windshields should have 70% VLT. Make sure that you don't install 50% films on the rear windshield. They are allowed on side windows only.

Adding to that. Only those going in for re-tinting bother about this. If you already have 50% all around, do not bother to get it changed to 70% since on the road, a cop can hardly tell between 50 and 70%, until they have the meter. And in anyways, 50% is pretty much transparent. So you will not be stopped in the first place.

[sumathindra]

Any idea on the latest info on removing sunfilms as per Bangalore BTP directions; Is it mandatory to remove them?

[autocrat]

Well Friends - 50 or 70 does not matter - according to the judgement, any kind of film that modifies the VLT of the car glasses is illegal.

Please note that criticizing / commenting on judgement given by any court can put you in trouble - contempt of court - so please read and keep your opinions to yourself

Judgement view - Forum - Law, Lawyers, Advocates, Law Firms,Legal Help, Legal Experts,Judgements,Law Help, Indian Lawyers

Relevant excerpts:

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.

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.

18. Two scenarios must be examined. First, if the glass so
manufactured already has the VLT as specified, then the
question of further reducing it by any means shall be in clear
violation of Rule 100 as well as the prescribed IS. Secondly,
the rule requires a manufacturer to manufacture the vehicles
with safety glasses with prescribed VLT. It is the minimum
percentage that has been specified. The manufacturer may
manufacture vehicle with a higher VLT to the prescribed limit
or even a vehicle with tinted glasses, if such glasses do not fall
short of the minimum prescribed VLT in terms of Rule 100.
None can be permitted to create his own device to bring down
the percentage of the VLT thereafter. Thus, on the plain
reading of the Rule and the IS standards, use of black films of
any density is impermissible. Another adverse aspect of use
of black films is that even if they reflect tolerable VLT in the
day time, still in the night it would clearly violate the
prescribed VLT limits and would result in poor visibility,
which again would be impermissible.

19. The legislative intent attaching due significance to the
`public safety' is evident from the object and reasons of the
Act, the provisions of the Act and more particularly, the Rules
framed thereunder. Even if we assume, for the sake of
argument, that Rule 100 is capable of any interpretation, then
this Court should give it an interpretation which would serve
the legislative intent and the object of framing such rules, in
preference to one which would frustrate the very purpose of
enacting the Rules as well as undermining the public safety
and interest. Use of these black films have been proved to be
criminal's paradise and a social evil. The petitioner has
rightly brought on record the unanimous view of various
police authorities right from the States of Calcutta, Tamil
Nadu and Delhi to the Ministry of Home Affairs that use of
black films on vehicles has jeopardized the security and safety
interests of the State and public at large. This certainly helps
the criminals to escape from the eyes of the police and aids in
commission of heinous crimes like s*xual assault on women,
robberies, kidnapping, etc. If these crimes can be reduced by
enforcing the prohibition of law, it would further the cause of
Rule of Law and Public Interest as well.

21. In the present case as well, even if some individual
interests are likely to suffer, such individual or private
interests must give in to the larger public interest. It is the
duty of all citizens to comply with the law. The Rules are
mandatory and nobody has the authority in law to mould
these rules for the purposes of convenience or luxury and
certainly not for crime. We may also note that a Bench of this
Court, vide its Order dated 15 th December, 1998 in Civil
Appeal No. 3700 of 1999 titled Chandigarh Administration and
Others v. Namit Kumar & Ors., had permitted the use of `light
coloured tinted glasses' only while specifically disapproving
use of films on the vehicles. Subsequently, in the same case,
but on a different date, another Bench of this Court vide its
order reported at [(2004) 8 SCC 446] made a direction that
mandate of sub-Rule (2) of Rule 100 shall be kept in mind
while dealing with such cases.

22. Rightly so, none of the orders of this Court have
permitted use of black films. Rule 100(2) specifies the VLT
percentage of the glasses at the time of manufacture and to be
so maintained even thereafter. In Europe, Regulation No. 43
of the Economic Commission for Europe of the United Nations
(UN/ECE) and in Britain, the Road Vehicles (Construction and
Use) Regulations, 1986, respectively, refer to the International
Standard ISO 3538 on this issue, providing for VLT
percentage of 70 and 75 per cent respectively.

23. In light of the above discussion, we have no hesitation in
holding that use of black films or any other material upon
safety glass, windscreen and side windows is impermissible.
In terms of Rule 100(2), 70 per cent and 50 per cent VLT
standard are relatable to the manufacture of the safety glasses
for the windshields (front and rear) and the side windows
respectively. Use of films or any other material upon the
windscreen or the side windows is impermissible in law. It is
the VLT of the safety glass without any additional material
being pasted upon the safety glasses which must conform
with manufacture specifications.


24. Another issue that has been raised in the present Writ
Petition is that certain VIPs/VVIPs are using black films on
their vehicles for security reasons. Even this practice is not
supported by law, as no notification by the competent
authority has been brought to our notice, giving exemption to
such vehicles from the operation of Rule 100 or any of its
provisions. Be that as it may, we do not wish to enter upon
the arena of the security and safety measures when the police
department and Home Ministry consider such exemption
appropriate. The cases of the persons who have been
provided with Z and Z+ security category may be considered
by a Committee consisting of the Director General of
Police/Commissioner of Police of the concerned State and the
Home Secretary of that State/Centre. It will be for that
Committee to examine such cases for grant of exemption in
accordance with law and upon due application of mind.
These certificates should be provided only in relation to official
cars of VIPs/VVIPs, depending upon the category of security
that such person has been awarded by the competent
authority. The appropriate government is free to make any
regulations that it may consider appropriate in this regard.

25. The competent officer of the traffic police or any other
authorized person shall challan such vehicles for violating
Rules 92 and 100 of the Rules with effect from the specified
date and thereupon shall also remove the black films from the
offending vehicles.

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.

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. The Home Secretary,
Director General/Commissioner of Police of the respective
States/Centre shall ensure compliance with this direction.
The directions contained in this judgment shall become
operative and enforceable with effect from 4 th May, 2012.

28. 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.

[anshul_UVA]

Well, I read this news report, where S A Pasha, ACP from Bangalore Traffic Management has said

".... As of now, any kind of tinted glasses is not allowed until and unless it is from a recognised manufacturer that comply with 70 per cent visual light transmission (VLT) for front and rear windscreens, and 50 per cent VLT for side glasses, under Rule 100 of Central Motor Vehicles Rule, 1989. ....."

Link to the article Free camps to remove films charge Rs 100 - South India - Bangalore - ibnlive

The only thing is, how do I prove this? I dont know if I have the original receipt of the sun-film from my dealer. Any ideas on this?

[vdpandit]

TSER vs IRR - Consumer Questions - TintDude

above is a good link to understand how to compare films

[Ragul]

Originally Posted by anshul_UVA

Well, I read this news report, where S A Pasha, ACP from Bangalore Traffic Management has said

".... As of now, any kind of tinted glasses is not allowed until and unless it is from a recognised manufacturer that comply with 70 per cent visual light transmission (VLT) for front and rear windscreens, and 50 per cent VLT for side glasses, under Rule 100 of Central Motor Vehicles Rule, 1989. ....."

Link to the article Free camps to remove films charge Rs 100 - South India - Bangalore - ibnlive

The only thing is, how do I prove this? I dont know if I have the original receipt of the sun-film from my dealer. Any ideas on this?

The word "Manufacturer" does not refer to sunfilm manufacturer here but to Glass manufacturer who sandwiches sunfilm between two layers. A sunfilm certificate is of no use here.

What you can do is purchase sandwiched tinted glass and have the cops scratch their heads after they try scratching your glass ...

--R

[pganapathy]

Originally Posted by Ragul

The word "Manufacturer" does not refer to sunfilm manufacturer here but to Glass manufacturer who sandwiches sunfilm between two layers. A sunfilm certificate is of no use here.

What you can do is purchase sandwiched tinted glass and have the cops scratch their heads after they try scratching your glass ...

--R

It looks like glass and auto manufacturers are going to be the beneficiaries of this crazy SC ruling of no tints on windows. You will soon find all cars being offered with legally permissible tinted glass at a premium.