Re: Car tints banned by HC! EDIT: Supreme Court bans all kinds of sunfilms in cars As seen from the DIY thread, some of you might have noticed that I have already removed the film from my car. However, I think there is a lot of misinterpretation / confusion against SC ruling floating around and thought it might be prudent to get all the related rules / rulings in one place. Quote:
MV 100 (2)
The glass of the windscreen and rear window of every motor vehicle shall be such and shall be maintained in such a condition that the visual transmission of light is not less than 70%. The glasses used for side windows are such and shall be maintained in such condition that the visual transmission of light is not less than 50%, and shall conform to Indian Standards. |
1. This has been in existance since 1989 and is very clear that the VLT should be 70% minimum for front and rear and 50% for the side windows. Quote:
SC Ruling
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. |
2. From this it is clear that the SC has merely upheld the rule that was already in existance.
3. It is also impossible to create a safety / laminated glass that has 100% VLT. This means that the glass that is equipped in the car has a VLT of a minimum of 70% for front and rear and 50% for the side windows. My own car - FIAT Palio has a VLT of 70% on all glasses.
4. Sun film manufacturers have been taking us for a ride all these days - by claiming that their film "is compliant with the Central Motor Vehicle Rule 1989. The film for the rear glass has a visual light transmission ( VLT) of 70% and the film for the side windows have a VLT of 50%." Their claim is true, if I remove the glasses from my car and replace with the film. What they have conveniently ignored telling us is that the film is complaint with CMV, provided the underlying glass has 100% VLT to start with.
5. We have been blissfully ignorant and have been breaking the law all these days.
6. I would request Mr. Goneka to file another PIL against the sunfilm manufacturers for misguiding the common man all these days and would pray that the SC rule that these manufacturers must reimburse all their customers, with a penalty for abetting this illegal act.
Rajan
Last edited by PatchyBoy : 12th May 2012 at 14:20.
|