[godog]

The background:

The Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, were modified over time to include specific Indian Standard {IS:2553-Part 2 * 1992} relating to the use of films eligible to be used on car glass (windscreen as well as side-screens). The guidelines were in accordance to international standards and practice, admitting that Visual Light Transmission (VLT) upto 50% through sidescreens and 70% through front and rear windscreens was a reasonable compromise between safety and "comfort".

Insofar as the misconduct and crime are concerned, the enforcement agencies, chiefly the Traffic Police of the state/territory, were to check the opacity of the vehicle glass using "Tint-meters" a.k.a. "Luxometer" ("Lux" being to light what "kmph" is to speed, its unit of measurement). Owing to the under-equipped police force, 3 of which also claimed a shortage of staff (Delhi, Kolkata, Tamil Nadu), the honorable supreme court, whilst hearing a petition of Mr. Avishek Goenka, passed an order to "prohibit use of black films of any percentage VLT upon the safety glasses, windscreens (front and rear) and side glasses" on 27 April, 2012. The order was to come into effect on 04 May, 2012 i.e. a week later.

However, the order was reported only two days prior to the date of enforcement, nudging the common junta into a state of chaos and panic. Many car owners and drivers, who were unaware of the extra-ordinary development in the highest court of the country, were caught on the roads and fined for the offence, a fine ranging from Rs. 500 to 1000 varying from region to region, for installing what they had assumed at the time, and correctly so, to be a legal car sun film.

The Petition:

In its judgement, the Supreme Court bench comprising Hon. Chief Justice S.H. Kapadia, Hon. Judge A.K. Patnaik and Hon. Judge Swatanter Kumar found that tinted windows on cars were used in a number of criminal activities such as kidnapping and terrorist activities (crimes against public and the state). The Hon. Court found the use of "Black Films" was a threat to society at large. In its view, the court found no other solution to the problem than to ban ALL films, of any kind, from being pasted on the glass of a vehicle.

The petition, started on the 4th of May 2012 on the website "Change.org" (Petition: the supreme court of india: Reconsider decision on a blanket ban on car films. | Change.org) asks the court to review its order because:

1. Existing guidelines (70% front and rear VLT, 50% side glass VLT) need to be enforced rather than relegated to history books.
2. Small and medium sized cars do NOT come pre-installed with either anti-glare, heat rejecting or safe glasses.
3. The compromise is that safety films are installed on glasses that are thin and break easily, cost Rs. 4000 and up. Protects occupants from attacks and danger from shattered glass during a collision, as also valuables left inside the car when parked.
4. Heat rejection films: Rs. 800 and up are installed by small vehicle owners in order to aid air-conditioning, especially during the months of May and June when the heat is unbearable especially in Delhi, where the order comes into effect first.
5. Contrary to the claim that films of the order of even 70% Visual Light Transmission aid criminals, women have gone to accessory stores to install films in their cars to escape harassment by men on bikes, unabashed stares and lewd comments by men (in other cars or on the road otherwise), especially in Delhi.
6. The indiscriminate and blanket ban on films ridicules the safety of ordinary, law abiding women and men, instead of enforcing already strict measures in place under the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. via the use of Electronic tint-meters (used to enforce the Rule of Law, succesfully, by the Chandigarh Police for many years now).

I, therefore, request all BHPians to sign this petition, if you too feel that

the Hon. Court's verdict is too harsh, even though it has the best of intentions.

[mahen_narang]

I agree that the verdict is way too harsh. The inability of law and order keepers to punish the select few who flaunt the rules is evident and this is what makes the general mass of people suffer.
in my opinion the existing RTO rules regarding the films should be re-inforced and kept going.

[msdivy]

My opinion is just remove any VLT restriction on films. The reason given for ban is to prevent crime. How many cases are reported for crime inside cars with sun films? Those cases will move elsewhere now. What is the alternative for protection against glare & possible UV rays?
For me it appears like somebody failed to argue the other side of case.

[sgiitk]

I have already signed it though I think these may be totally ineffective. I do not use film on any of my cars, but I have signed for two reasons. Individual freedom of choice, and it is not fair to allow some to get away. By the looks of it an ambulance does not need privacy but a neta or babu does!!!

[VANOS]

we all know this is bull. the government knows this as well. if they suspect a car let them pull it over and check. we all know that terrorist are much better funded. what stops them from buying an expensive car. no cop would dare stop a BMW or Merc or Audi. they are just out to make a quick buck when the sun shines. (Pun intended).

[YaeJay]

I, therefore, request all BHPians to sign this petition, if you too feel that

Done. We need more folks though!

[lancer_rit]

I signed this in the morning itself after it was posted on the other thread on SC judgement.

I believe the CMVR should define what is allowed or not. If there is any issue, the police/other parties should make representations to modify the CMVR.

Finally, I don't understand what the issue with police not having light meters to check the VLR of the films installed is ?

Does the police have pollution check meters to check if the car is polluting ? No sir. What they ask for is a certificate from an authorised pollution check center. So why can't there be authorized film VLR check center who certify the film is of the allowed VLR and in right condition ? If required, make it necessary to do this once every year!

Seriously, this is a completely illogical conclusion (to ban any and all film regardless) though the intentions were good ...

[kippu]

signed but honestly what is an online petition going to do, when has an online petition ever changed anything?. This ruling is on the same lines as stopping women to work after 8 pm to stop rapes., ridiculous

[anjan_c2007]

The Motor Vehicles Act 1989 has been passed by the Parliament about 23 years ago.The Supreme Court has only reiterated that the relevant Section in the Act that deals with the VLT factor of the sunfilms / tints be enforced sensu strico.The Supreme Court or any court for that matter does not make laws but interprets the enactments by the Parliament or Legislatures.This even covers ordinances promulgated by the President of India or Governors of States, when the respective house/s is/are not in session.
Hence being an enactment of the Parliament, nothing can be done by any court, other than the Parliament itself repealing the particular Section by a majority vote. In our democratic set-up the Parliament is supreme.
I am not discussing the merits or demerits, but only stating the facts of the matter.

[mahalingam_a]

I signed this just now although I was fuming when I first read out in the news paper regarding this judgement a couple of days back. I personally think, this is another way of bossing or intruding into the freedom of choice let alone comfort. The intentions are good but nothing will stop a law enforcing person to pull up some one when on doubt to check any criminal activity is going on or not. With all respect, this clearly demonstrates the incompetency as not having sufficient monitoring devices should mean people should be looked at with suspicion. A taste of another red tapism.

[RadiantKarma]

Already signed the petition - not sure if it would have any impact though.

I find the SC's interpretation of the relevant Rule 100(2) quite curious. Need someone with the knowledge of court procedures and the will to file a petition for review with the apex court. Maybe sun-film manufacturers will do it soon.

If the said judgment is not reviewed / reversed by SC based on such a petition, it would require amendment of the MV Act. Can it happen anytime soon?!

[suhaas307]

What angers me the most about this is not the rule, but the motive/intention behind it.

I'm going to give them the benefit of doubt here. They are probably not looking to make money or anything. This rule stems from the fact that the roads are not safe. Cars are used as moving rape-mobiles in several cities.

And what does the Legislation do? Instead of going to the root of the problem and fixing it, they'd prefer inconveniencing everyone by banning tints altogether, thereby making the law-enforcers' lives easier.

What about houses where murders take place? Are they going to insist that the walls be transparent?

This is like asking women to dress less provocatively in order to prevent getting harassed. Which brings me to a quote that I'd read on the internet recently:

"You raped her because her clothes provoked you? I should break your face because your stupidity provokes me!"

[mempheS.D]

Originally Posted by suhaas307

What angers me the most about this is not the rule, but the motive/intention behind it.

The day is not too far when the SC would issue a ban on SUNGLASSES of any tint level, in the interest of womenfolk (or menfolk) who've fallen victim to an ogle from behind the shades... ;-)

[amrisharm]

In a hot country like India, Sun films are quite needed. Not everyone can afford to buy cars with tinted glasses that usually come in premium cars or higher end models. The question of crime being committed inside dark glasses is valid, Ok so to prevent that just ban black film. whats the point in banning lighter film that are quite see through but enough to dull the harsh sun?

[raghu.t.k]

I too have signed the same. What I cannot understand is, what is the rationale behind this? Yes I do understand that its supposed to make the roads safe, but is this how they make the roads safe? Do we have a intelligence gathering system with the police these days, do they collaborate with other states? How clean and effective is the enforcement, do they perform without fear? Do we have the right amount of police and resources for policing the neighborhood? These things would have made the cities much more safer to all, not just for women.