[SLK]

Originally Posted by Santoshbhat

I always feel that we, as a nation have no respect for rules.

I think, we as a nation have no respect for common sense and it shows in most rules that we have (copied and applied without thought!).

Originally Posted by Santoshbhat

If the SC says they're illegal, they're illegal, end of story.

Yes, you are right they are illegal. But whether it is right or not is not for anyone to decide! to me the courts have been unreasonably strict.

People here have argued, that films were never explicitly allowed! Have they even read any Act? The laws are restrictive in nature unless they state otherwise, which the MV Act doesn't. Also, I wonder how could High Court never figure that out earlier, when there were similar cases filed in the past (i.e. 2005-06 in Delhi). If whatever is written in an Act was the only legal thing to do in the world, we would all be illegal.

The whole objective of this rule in the Act was to ensure safe visibility from inside the car! which is the angle now completely not being considered.

I don't care about films! I had no films in 3 of my car and had very light in the other 2 (which are also gone now!), but the whole argument here against films is not making any sense, its not an over-reaction against the ban on films, but frustration against lack of application of common sense.

[Raccoon]

Originally Posted by StarrySky

There is no premise. The court has ruled that what is not explicitly allowed in the rules will be considered as not allowed. Please tell me how you arrived at the premise that sunfilms are allowed as per CMVR.

Pardon me for calling a spade a spade, but I think nobody in this thread is really concerned about shopkeepers, companies or their business (unless they are directly affected). But people find it convenient to use that in this thread, because it suits their agenda. A lot of homes and businesses are uprooted when govt acquires land for development projects, new wider roads etc. How many of us think of those businesses that were uprooted to build the road when we blast through the highways at high speeds? A new road which bypasses a city probably leads to huge fall in revenue for the businesses inside the city. How many of us really care, since we get to save time and fuel by using the new road?

So you are accusing me of conveniently using the welfare of workers/companies/businesses because it suits my agenda. You may be party right. But I'm not a Supreme Court judge. It can be argued that I can be excused for using it to suit my agenda. But that does not hold true for someone occupying that hon'ble chair. He is expected to take all angles into consideration and also consider the outcome of a judgment and so many other factors and also the public AND individual good. This has obviously not happened. Or do you disagree to that too?

As for your view that whatever is not explicitly not allowed should be considered not allowed, I'm afraid its going to hit some real rough weather. In that case the music system in your car that is most likely not explicitly allowed is illegal. I imagine the AC is also most likely not explicitly allowed. That becomes illegal right away too. The floor mats go the same way. So does the ash tray, and a lot of other things... sigh!

This argument is just so specious. Its like saying unless there is a board that says parking in an area is allowed, its illegal. We all know that mercifully it is not true... at least not till now. Maybe someone will soon come out with a PIL and the courts will rule that parking anywhere is illegal and hazardous unless explicitly allowed. Yes, I won't be terribly surprised if that happens in India too, given our glorious legal precedents.

Maybe soon no parking boards in India will be history, and we shall see "Parking" or "Parking Allowed" boards sprout all over our holy land. But think +ve - we can then go and gloat that the "Parking" board is India's gift to the word, just like the zero.

[StarrySky]

Originally Posted by Raccoon

He is expected to take all angles into consideration and also consider the outcome of a judgment and so many other factors and also the public AND individual good. This has obviously not happened. Or do you disagree to that too?

I can ask you the same question as I did earlier about building new roads. Why doesn't the govt think of "individual good" when deciding to uproot existing businesses and homes to build new roads? Why?

Originally Posted by Raccoon

As for your view that whatever is not explicitly not allowed should be considered not allowed, I'm afraid its going to hit some real rough weather.

Interesting thoughts on AC and music system, somebody could try suing for that. But, in my understanding, the rules deal with the basic construction of a vehicle (conditions that the vehicle must comply to for it to be considered road-worthy) and it specifically defines certain conditions that the glass used in vehicles must comply to. Unfortunately, it is here that the court has ruled that sunfilms are not allowed as per the existing rules regarding glass used in vehicles.

Originally Posted by Raccoon

This argument is just so specious. Its like saying unless there is a board that says parking in an area is allowed, its illegal. We all know that mercifully it is not true... at least not till now.

If I remember correctly, that is TRUE. I think someone on the forum had posted a question to Bangalore or Pune police department regarding parking and the answer was that you are allowed to park only in "designated" parking areas. Now, I don't know if all "designated" parking areas are specifically marked, but certainly it means that all areas where there is no "No Parking" board cannot be used for parking. So, yes, someone can file a PIL asking for all designated parking areas to be marked.

[ghostrider]

There's been a lot of debate here on whether the ruling's just or not, but I'm not going to wade into it.

All I will say is this: we face much more serious issues than these trivial ones. Yes, overly dark tints shouldn't be allowed because (a) they obstruct visibility and (b) they obstruct law enforcement to some extent for obvious reasons, but banning films altogether seems far too draconian a decision for something too petty an issue.

I for one, am going to continue driving with my Vkool tints. They're extremely light and I've never been pulled over by a cop for having them. There's also a very discernible difference in heat repulsion with the tints.
I paid a bomb for them and I'm not going to take them off because of a whimsical (and nonsensical, IMO) judgement that will probably be overturned (or turned a blind eye to) soon.

[nettooran]

Here is the full and detailed ruling by the Supreme Court. From what I have read, these are the highlights..

Welcome to ANSWERING LAW : India's Premier Portal for Lawyers, Students, NRI's and Public : SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT ON SUN CONTROL FILMS

1. There is no such ruling about the use of 70 % 50 % stuff. Both the side, rear and front glass should be 100% transparent.
2. The percentage thing is about the Motor vehicle law which allows the manufacturer(car) to have 70% visibility tint at the rear and 50% visibility tint on the sides.

[mrsherlock]

Originally Posted by nettooran

1. There is no such ruling about the use of 70 % 50 % stuff. Both the side, rear and front glass should be 100% transparent.
2. The percentage thing is about the Motor vehicle law which allows the manufacturer(car) to have 70% visibility tint at the rear and 50% visibility tint on the sides.

There is an article in today's Pune DNA about this. From what I have inferred from the article is that:

1. It is illegal to put any film on the windows or windscrens. Period. No matter how light the film is, it is illegal.
2. Only car manufacturer can provide tint in the window glass and front/rear windscreen of the car provided the tint is within permissible limits (70% VLT for front/rear windscreen and 50% for window panes).

Attaching a snap of this article.

[jayded]

Originally Posted by StarrySky

I can ask you the same question as I did earlier about building new roads. Why doesn't the govt think of "individual good" when deciding to uproot existing businesses and homes to build new roads? Why?

But doesn't affected parties during a road widening process get (promised) a fair compensation equivalent in value of their loss? How much of it reaches them is again a big question mark thanks to the way our country is governed and the super fast court rulings. Hence I don't think your analogy of affected parties in a road widening to the sun-film ban is right.

Interesting thoughts on AC and music system, somebody could try suing for that. But, in my understanding, the rules deal with the basic construction of a vehicle (conditions that the vehicle must comply to for it to be considered road-worthy) and it specifically defines certain conditions that the glass used in vehicles must comply to. Unfortunately, it is here that the court has ruled that sunfilms are not allowed as per the existing rules regarding glass used in vehicles.

We have heard numerous cases of cars catching fire and and most of the scrutinies done have pointed fingers at aftermarket electrical insulations. So while you will agree with me that a burning car is definitely not road-worthy, how would one feel if the court came out with a new rule banning all after-market audio installations, allowing only factory fitted audio and other electrical devices? The entire episode sounds to me like burning down the house to kill the rat inside.

[rrnsss]

This Sunfilm episode is ridiculous and frankly I see the police turning a bind eye in chennai as long as they are able to see inside.

I for one am not willing to be uncomfortable in my own car , just because one individual has decreed that sunfilms are illegal.

In my death bed , I am not going to be proud that I suffered all that Chennai sun , to uphold the rule of law to the letter. This whole things is so silly.

I can understand if we citizens are asked to make sacrifices for a greater cause. But this is just to compensate for the inabilty of the law enforcement to check VLT figures.


I totally agree with banning heavy tints, but banning all tints , that just seems silly.

Common sense tells me to not burn my skin , get a head ache , or risk UV exposure , just so that the law enforcement people can work with out proper VLT checking equipment.

[apachelongbow]

Lets get one thing right. The court has NOT banned sunfilms. The court has just told the cops to enforce what is written in CMVR. Sorry, CMVR doesnt have any provision for sunfilms, infact it never considered that manufacturers would want to paste films on their cars. If car windows are tinted CMVR states tints should allow 70 VLT on front and back windows and 50 VLT on side windows.

If you want to sunfilm your car please ensure the antiquated CMVR rules are changed.

Likewise CMVR has guidelines for types of headlights, tail lights, reflectors, indicators etc etc. If one modifies ones car, adding fancy lights, alloy wheels etc one is breaking CMVR regulations. Unfortunately that is how it is. Old rules, older politicans.

[SedatedDrive]

Originally Posted by rrnsss

This Sunfilm episode is ridiculous and frankly I see the police turning a bind eye in chennai as long as they are able to see inside.

I for one am not willing to be uncomfortable in my own car , just because one individual has decreed that sunfilms are illegal.

In my death bed , I am not going to be proud that I suffered all that Chennai sun , to uphold the rule of law to the letter. This whole things is so silly.

I can understand if we citizens are asked to make sacrifices for a greater cause. But this is just to compensate for the inabilty of the law enforcement to check VLT figures.


I totally agree with banning heavy tints, but banning all tints , that just seems silly.

Common sense tells me to not burn my skin , get a head ache , or risk UV exposure , just so that the law enforcement people can work with out proper VLT checking equipment.

Relax. I am working on the solution to the whole problem. I cannot guarantee return of your money that was lost in ripped films, but at least it should put rest to this whole legal mess and infringement of rights.

Originally Posted by apachelongbow

Lets get one thing right. The court has NOT banned sunfilms. The court has just told the cops to enforce what is written in CMVR. Sorry, CMVR doesnt have any provision for sunfilms, infact it never considered that manufacturers would want to paste films on their cars. If car windows are tinted CMVR states tints should allow 70 VLT on front and back windows and 50 VLT on side windows.

If you want to sunfilm your car please ensure the antiquated CMVR rules are changed.

Likewise CMVR has guidelines for types of headlights, tail lights, reflectors, indicators etc etc. If one modifies ones car, adding fancy lights, alloy wheels etc one is breaking CMVR regulations. Unfortunately that is how it is. Old rules, older politicans.

Actually the SC has identified Sun Films and has interpreted the CMVR section as to not permitting sun films with regards to VLT of windows. It is a ban, and if I may say so it threads on the Executive which could have been avoided if our politicians actively updated the rules year on year, which in turn could have been avoided if we citizens had kept prodding them.

"What is this?"
"Free TV! Vote for us in the com..."
"No thanks. But perhaps you can ensure modifying this law..." (flip flip of printed booklet of CMVR Rules) "Yes this one. Add some clarity here... And here..."
"Uh... Yes yes sure! Please vote for us in the com..."
"Oh I forgot. This rule about dual pricing... Hey wait! I am not done with my demands!"

[Sedate]

Last night I was talking to a senior citizen(90+). He was telling me that, the law for maintaining 70% VLT and 50% VLT could have came out because, the safety glass celluloid layer(the central layer) used to darken all by itself, causing a tinting effect. So in 10 years time, the car`s front window will look like a yellowish(golden) tinted glass, reducing visibility.

A google search returned the following website with text

"The only disadvantage of early laminated glass was that the celluloid centre layer could discolour over time, leading to a tinted effect and even becoming opaque and separating; this is not uncommon on vintage cars."

Car Glass | The Knowledge | Features | octane

Also as per the ruling
"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 4th May, 2012. "

Should this mean you should be removing the rear defoggers too? They are copper strips and are attached to the glass? I may be reading too much, but if you are applying water repellent windshield washer, the cops could catch you- The law denies it verbally(any other material).
The blanket ban effectively prevents - "bird dropping, dust, grim, grease, windshield washer fluid, rain water, snow, entry passes, toll pass and even your own finger marks!" I think all these come under - any other material!

The administrative could have for seen this and with collective brain storming put the responsibility on citizen to maintain the visibility of traffic from his vehicle ensuring his own safety and safety of citizens.

[drmohitg]

Originally Posted by apachelongbow

Lets get one thing right. The court has NOT banned sunfilms. The court has just told the cops to enforce what is written in CMVR. Sorry, CMVR doesnt have any provision for sunfilms, infact it never considered that manufacturers would want to paste films on their cars. If car windows are tinted CMVR states tints should allow 70 VLT on front and back windows and 50 VLT on side windows.

My Vkool films came with a certificate from Vkool on there official letterhead with stamp that the films they have put are in accordance with the RTO regulations of 70/50% VLT. Can then I take Vkool to court for fraud since sunfilms were always illegal to begin with?

Originally Posted by Sedate

The law denies it verbally(any other material).
The blanket ban effectively prevents - "bird dropping, dust, grim, grease, windshield washer fluid, rain water, snow, entry passes, toll pass and even your own finger marks!" I think all these come under - any other material!

ROFL
This is the problem with the SC's interpretation and the frustration when some people try to defend it by saying that the SC has just read the law as it saw it. Your post although extremely funny, is right on its mark. The cop tomorrow would not be wrong in issuing you a challan for all those reasons above since you have to ensure the VLT%. And any sticker specially the PUC one should be illegal since it effectively decreases the VLT to zero% in the area it covers.

[.sourov]

I will not be going into the debate whether the SC ruling is correct or not, but I would like to get an answer from our beloved Court that if this was the rule since beginning then what made them realize that it is being violated after such a long time. When we bought the films they charged us with their sales tax, vat and so on and now suddenly its illegal. If they really want us rip our films then should return atleast the tax amount paid by us.
I have still got my very light sunfilms on and I will continue to use them as I have bought them legally paying all the taxes and duties.

[MindSpeeDs]

Originally Posted by .sourov

I will not be going into the debate whether the SC ruling is correct or not, but I would like to get an answer from our beloved Court that if this was the rule since beginning then what made them realize that it is being violated after such a long time. When we bought the films they charged us with their sales tax, vat and so on and now suddenly its illegal. If they really want us rip our films then should return atleast the tax amount paid by us.
I have still got my very light sunfilms on and I will continue to use them as I have bought them legally paying all the taxes and duties.

erm..why only tax. They were sold as legal, remember!?

[Raccoon]

Originally Posted by .sourov

I will not be going into the debate whether the SC ruling is correct or not, but I would like to get an answer from our beloved Court that if this was the rule since beginning then what made them realize that it is being violated after such a long time. When we bought the films they charged us with their sales tax, vat and so on and now suddenly its illegal. If they really want us rip our films then should return atleast the tax amount paid by us.
I have still got my very light sunfilms on and I will continue to use them as I have bought them legally paying all the taxes and duties.

Yeah, why just the tax? It should be the entire invoice amount including labour charges. But even that is a ridiculous solution because its just taxpayer's money that is being used to compensate for destruction of property. Similarly, companies, workers, shops, etc., should also demand compensation. But why should the tax payer pay for all this? Just because an absurd law and its absurd interpretation by one hon'ble individual? Absurd situation, absurd laws, absurd...