[scopriobharath]

I cannot imagine driving without sun-films in chennai heat. Even with sun films on the AC takes ages to cool and now without sunfilm its going to be hell.

Secondly even from a safety perspective, Tints reduce visibility to occupants and also stuff kept like Mobiles, laptops, purse etc in addition to rear-view sensor displays et all.

In India the law is very simple - if you use a facility, tax is heavily / ban it. Next thing they will come up with is a 4% extra tax for vehicles having sun films . Everyone knows that India is a country which is hot and humid almost throughout (except maybe a few places) the year. They might implement a compulsory 4% tax and allow 50%/70% visibility. With my experience on the road, i hardly notice (1 in 500) any vehicle without tints.

[fast&furious]

Originally Posted by 2cents

I don't see how you got that interpretation. It just mentions the level of visibility, doesn't specify how you achieve it.

• Use of dark, black or reflective glass in vehicles is not permitted

I thought cars with sunfilms on the glass also come under this category since most of the reflective glasses we see around are plain glasses with silver films on them.

[Parthasarathig]

Originally Posted by sam003

Look at other aspects as well. When they say in many cases crime against women offenders use tinted cars. But why don't they think, in normal day to day life, with 50% clarity how many women get saved. My wife/sister too doesn't want to drive with clear glasses, heat is other part.

+1 to that.

All may not seem bad for the sunfilm manufacturers. Maybe they can provide their world class quality sun protection at the manufacturing level itself. That way every car thats made will have OEM tints and the price gets added to the ex showroom price of the car.

The ones who would suffer are the after market shops that make profits with the sale of sun films.

Also the tints offer a good amount of privacy. In case you have equipment worth a lot of money installed in the car you wouldnt want the thieves to get clear vision of all that would you?! it would only provoke the thieves to follow your car etc etc.
Cause lets accept it,not everyone who knocks on the window will be wanting to know the score right?!
Cheers!!

P.s is there any shop in Bangalore where we can get the tints removed? I dont trust my DIY skills with the rear defogger windshield.
Also can anyone direct me to where I can get new HSNP fitted on my car. The earlier thread mentioned UTSAV but seems like the govt has given the tender to some other company.

Thanks.

[wildon]

Here is the Supreme Court Judgment for your reading.

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.

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.

[akshay4587]

What do they have to say about OEM curtains?
My Car comes with a OEM curtain for the rear glass,and it for sure is more opaque than 70%VLT Sunfilm.
So is it susceptible to getting torn apart by cops.
Probably i should keep it rolled down.

[StarrySky]

Curtains, yes! I remember seeing Ambassadors which had curtains on the windows. Maybe it's time to go back to curtains. As per the judgement, as long as we don't stick the curtains to the glass areas, we should be fine.

Originally Posted by akshay4587

If not glass area,where else you plan to stick curtains?

The sunfilm sticks to the surface of the glass. Curtains do not. They don't even need to touch the glass. Hence, they should be legal, unless there's some other rule which prevents the use of curtains.

[RadiantKarma]

I am trying to understand the Rule 100 that has been interpreted by the Court in its order under discussion. The order mentions under para 10

Rule 100 of the Rules concerns itself with the glass of windscreen and VLT of light of such glass windscreen...

The Rule 100 of the MV Act, 1988 as available on The Motor Vehicles Act 1988 however is about "Objection to the proposal" and is quoted below for quick reference:

100-Objection to the proposal
(1)On the publication of any proposal regarding a scheme in the Official Gazette and in not less than one newspaper in the regional language circulating in the area or route which is to be covered by such proposal any person may, within thirty days from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette, file objections to it before the State Government.
(2)The State Government may, after considering the objections and after giving an opportunity to the objector or his representatives and the representatives of the State transport undertaking to be heard in the matter, if they so desire, approve or modify such proposal.
(3)The scheme relating to the proposal as approved or modified under sub-section (2) shall then be published in the Official Gazette by the State Government making such scheme and in not less than one newspaper in the regional language circulating in the area or route covered by such scheme and the same shall thereupon become final on the date of its publication in the Official Gazette and shall be called the approved scheme and the area or route to which it relates shall be called the notified area or notified route:
Provided that no such scheme which relates to any inter-State route shall be deemed to be an approved scheme unless it has the previous approval of the Central Government.
(4)Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, where a scheme is not published as an approved scheme under sub-section (3) in the Official Gazette within a period of one year from the date of publication of the proposal regarding the scheme in the Official Gazette under sub-section (1), the proposal shall be deemed to have lapsed.
Explanation.--In computing the period of one year referred to in this sub-section, any period or periods during which the publication of the approved scheme under sub-section (3) was held up on account of any stay or injunction by the order of any court shall be excluded.

Note that there is no "glass" or "VLT" in it. Then what has the court interpreted in its order? Other Rules / sections referred to in the order appear to match with the MV Act I am reviewing. Am I missing something?

[akshay4587]

Originally Posted by StarrySky

Curtains, yes! I remember seeing Ambassadors which had curtains on the windows. Maybe it's time to go back to curtains. As per the judgement, as long as we don't stick the curtains to the glass areas, we should be fine.

If not glass area,where else you plan to stick curtains?
My Car has a curtain\Sunblind for rear glass,and cars like superb have sunblinds for rear windows as well,where is the judgement for these?
These are more opaque than sunfilms.

[srishiva]

Look at this from the judgement

"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"

Isn't this because there is less light at night, do they want to turn on the interior lights, now? This situation will not change even if the manufacturer created the VLT limits.

What is the difference between manufacturer creating a 70 or 50% VLT and I creating the same technically?

[nitinbose]

What about sunfilms like the 3M CR series that are transparent? I'm sure those would be legal, though quite pricey!

[ivar1951]

Originally Posted by DCEite

This is totally ridiculous. They are blaming all the rape cases, road rage cases, accidents on TINTS. How funny?!
Methinks they are just trying to hide their own incompetence by passing such laws.

Very true. In the 1980s, when militancy was at its height in Punjab, the State Government banned the plying of Royal Enfield motorcycles in the State as some of the killings were done by men using these vehicles!! Only too see the militants switching to cars. There were a lot of red faces.

A former DGP, imported from Delhi to put up a fight, even blamed the network of link roads for his inability to catch the killers.

Amazing ways to avoid focus on shoddy investigation and beat policing.

This is also another example of judiciary treading into areas where it does not have the expertise. At best, the Supreme Court should have appointed an expert panel, including car and film manufacturers, to examine the matter in its entirety and report back to it.

Moreover, will those willing to rape bother about a trivial matter like breaking a minor traffic rule involving a fine of a few hundred rupees.

[nitinbose]

Originally Posted by ivar1951

Amazing ways to avoid focus on shoddy investigation and beat policing.

This reminds me on an incident in Saudi Arabia where a group of gentlemen molested a girl and this was shot on a camera phone and the 'live' feed done to other friends via 3G. The country immediately banned the sale of mobile phones with cameras!

So its just not here in India.

[ivar1951]

Originally Posted by wolfinstein

The fines you pay will be used for the upgrades.

Are you sure? In Chandigarh at least the police does not get to keep them and use them for traffic police work. This money goes to the Chandigarh Administration for use as its thinks fit.

[srishiva]

This whole thing is for one reason 'Authorities cant afford a fluxmeter to check'? Hence, put the onus on manufacturers which is easy and ban all paste on jobs later.

[wilful]

Originally Posted by nitinbose

What about sunfilms like the 3M CR series that are transparent? I'm sure those would be legal, though quite pricey!

I think that would fall under the 70% category - which is also included in the Hon Supreme Court's ruling sadly. I think they have said 'no' to any kind of film on glass.