Re: Car tints banned by HC! EDIT: Supreme Court bans all kinds of sunfilms in cars Quote:
Originally Posted by Originally Posted by manasm
It also shows that the supreme court has dwelled at length before delivering the verdict and is unlikely to be challenged in the future. |
Really? Quote:
Originally Posted by longford
After a detailed read, it is very clear that nothing is permitted on factory fitted glass, which of course , need to conform to the minimum 70/50 % VLT limits.
|
Again,Really?: Here is the relevant paragraph Quote:
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.
|
This makes all films PASTED to the glasses, that alter the VLT illegal. It does not make any of the following illegal, technically: - Curtains as in the Scorpio (posted 3 times in this thread)
- Popular detachable windscreenblinds
- Chipkoos sold at traffic signals
- Towel held up by the glass (as seen today on OMR, Bangalore)
- Newspaper, also held up by the glass (as seen in one of my company cabs)
All of the above make the physical visibilty 0% without altering the VLT of the glass and are much more dangerous. I like to think that in the letter and spirit of the law, all of the above are illegal, but law enforcement seems to be not so sure. It is the understanding of law enforcement agencies that make a difference to the end-user. No one gives a damn what I think.
And you think this is dwelled at length and very clear?
Please see the photoageing picture posted by Pri2. Is this how you want your children to look when they are adults?
I donno about anyone else, but let me make this very clear. It believe I have been treated unfairly and I am not willing to take this lying down. As a group or alone, doesn't matter.
For the nth time : the PIL was asking for a technically impossible 100% VLT, thus demonstarting the amount of thought and research that went into this PIL. As far as I am concerned, this PIL is very poorly researched and has caused a lot of problems to the very same AAM ADMI that the NGO that filed this claims to save. While it may not be possible now to reverse the SC ruling, I am sure it is possible to try and get the out-dated law changed. And I intened to do just that.
Thanks,
Rajan
EDIT: This thread could do with some *condoring*. It deserves that more than the jokes thread.
Last edited by PatchyBoy : 2nd June 2012 at 18:06.
|