1. Introducing the smashing new Team FIAT T-Shirt !! To order yours click here : Team FIAT T-Shirt

"From Friday, any tinted film on car windows will be illegal" - Supreme Court

Discussion in 'Non FIAT Cars and two wheelers' started by Rituraj, May 2, 2012.

  1. PatchyBoy

    PatchyBoy Esperto

    Messages:
    2,438
    Bangalore
    There is this misconception that sun-films were banned, because they provided privacy to commit crimes. Though this was the primary argument of the petitioner, the ruling was just a mere interpretation of a rule that already existed.

    See this picture for reference of how glass will look with various percentages of VLT:

    car_tint_headline.jpg

    These are pictured from outside the car. It is obvious that a glass with 70% VLT or even 50% VLT will offer little privacy - film or no film.

    In principle, these films were never meant to exist. They did and the vast majority of the public misused these films. It is not very uncommon to see comments like - "Get the darkest possible film. It will give your car a mafia like look" in most automotive forums.

    Having said that, I personally believe that the rule should be amended to provide for heat rejection films, that do not reduce the VLT to lower than permissible limits. Moreover, the argument that most crimes in moving vehicles happen behind the privacy of dark films is a moot point, as most crimes happen in the dark hours of the night, when the insides of the vehicle are not clearly visible anyways. Also the crimes are not going to reduce by merely banning these films. The venue will just shift, at best. Or the criminals will be so hardened, that they will not give a damn to visibility. The recent Delhi case, that has rekindled this discussion, shows this clearly. After all, the victim was accompanied by a male companion, who could only be a mute spectator to the events and could do little to save the victim.

    The biggest problem with the Indian "culture" is that the vast majority plead ignorance and choose to violate rules, where convenient and then blame the enforcement agencies when things go wrong. I mean, how many times do we notice people driving automobiles disobey red lights? Are these people ignorant? No, they just believe that they do not have to obey traffic signals, if no one is going to be affected. Then one fine day a poor pedestrian gets hit, as he/she was trying cross the road, since the signal was red for traffic and someone decided to jump that. Then we will see all kinds of blame throwing happening at the Traffic Police. We have to acknowledge the fact that there are 130 cops for every 100,000 people in our country and there is only so much they can do. I believe that the only way a change can happen in this case scenario is when we, the citizen, take it upon ourselves to obey the law.

    Rapes and other heinous crimes happen in other so called developed countries too. IMHO, crimes and sun film on auto glass are two non-related things and should not be confused as one abetting the other.

    Rajan
    5 people like this.
  2. gurjinder

    gurjinder Staff Member Janitor

    Messages:
    3,989
    Punjab
    True ; so are all of your points.

    But when the Supreme Court of India, who has given us many progressive judgements - a beacon of hope in India - gives us THIS order - banning all sunfilms, then who do we go to. :confused:

    Only the Parliament has the power to enact a law to overcome the SC verdict, if it wants to.
  3. caffeineam

    caffeineam Amatore

    Messages:
    217
    Mumbai
    Each time I come across this topic here and elsewhere, I keep wondering how can a judgement like this be passed by the Supreme Court without a technical investigation or survey or some scientific method to back up the judgement. What they have done is essentially wipe out an industry based on one person's complaint (I think?). I mean no offense but how can a judge like this be appointed to the Supreme Court? Unfortunately the people affected by this are too busy trying to live their day to day lives to do anything about it :(.
    1 person likes this.
  4. amit

    amit Superiore

    Messages:
    767
    Navi Mumbai
    The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

    Sunfilms were banned in August. Can the law enforcing authorities & even the Supreme Court tell us how much reduction has happened in crimes since September till date compared to the same period last year? The results will be surprising to these government organisations who are living in their own world. But will anyone inform us of the results? Let me correct it, will anyone try and find out if there has been a reduction in crimes in the first place? This is the reason we go through the same cycle of "crime - shock - outrage - knee jerk reactions & banning something or the other - moving on - Crime - Shock - outrage" and it goes on.

    Crimes against women or rapes have never happened due to sun films. Few months back a robber came into the house of a Spanish woman living in Mumbai and raped her. Where was sun film there? Will supreme court now say make houses of glass? Most rapes are done by men who are known to the victims. Where is sun film there? Today, minor's and mentally unstable women are raped too, where is the sun film there?

    Have the law enforcement authorities tried to find out why men molest & rape women? Abroad there is something called criminal profiling. Forget the lower rung cops and courts, has the home minister of this country heard of this term? These tools are widely used abroad to PREVENT crimes from happening. Everyone goes gaga over how the Delhi cops caught the criminals in few days. My point is it should never have happened. Banning sun films & increasing patrolling by cops is not the solution to this menace. These things will not prevent or deter criminals from doing what they have been doing.

    Regarding the crime that happened in Delhi, two of the attacker's have sisters. One has a 15 year old sister and the other who is a minor has 3 sister's at home. The others were probably married. From what I know, except for one, all of them are first time offender's. The one who has a criminal record had it for picking fights in his neighbourhood and had an accident case against him but none for rape. What made them do this crime? Sure they were drunk but it can't just be alcohol, there has to be more. This is where profiling helps.

    Instead of banning sun films, why can't cops take note of offences against women seriously. Why can't court's speed up the justice mechanism? Just yesterday, a woman out jogging at Juhu Beach, Mumbai was slapped by a man. When she went to the closest chowky, they refused to take the complaint! This, just a few days after the horrific crime in Delhi. And the cops want us to remove sun films from our cars?

    If you will punish people for smaller crimes like eve teasing or molestation (not that these are smaller crimes), bigger ones like rape will automatically reduce. Today the law is perceived, correctly, as being too weak and slow. Where is the fear of law today in our minds? Fear is the biggest deterrent for most criminals.

    Lastly, we need to understand that most Indian men are frustrated & have no respect for women and the society is to blame for that. Stop treating your male child as the Raja babu. When a boy and girl come home from school, the mother will come and give a glass of water to the boy with her own hands or tell her daughter to give her brother a glass of water. Out of 10, at least 2 times you tell your son to do that for his sister. These are subtle ways to instil respect for women in men.

    For the kind of society we have, there is no short cut solution but we as a country have never been known to get to the root cause of any problem. We will always react by banning some things and then keep getting outraged every time a horrific crime happens.
    Last edited: Dec 22, 2012
    13 people like this.
  5. PatchyBoy

    PatchyBoy Esperto

    Messages:
    2,438
    Bangalore
    Amit, this exactly is the problem. Sun Films were not banned so as to prevent crime. They were banned, as they were in violation of CMV rule 100(2). The vast majority unfortunately expect the crime rate to go down after the ban and when it does not, the call the ruling flawed. Even if one were to see if crimes have reduced due to this ban, then one has to look at crimes committed in vehicles only.

    BTW, the ban came into effect from 4th May 2012 and not August.

    Rajan
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2012
    1 person likes this.
  6. ramjn

    ramjn Staff Member Janitor

    Messages:
    5,243
    Chennai
    Linea 1.3
    All this ruling and enforcement came only after a gentleman filed a PIL with SC for the crimes in Delhi. That is how the case was heard in SC.

    Also, we discussed at least thousand times about this CMV Rule 100(2). That is a specification given to the manufacturer and not to the user. Even if users are expected to fall in line, there is no clause in the rule which prohibits the tints. It only talks about the VLT. To make it very clear, there is no mention of any sunfilm or tints in the whole of CMVR (1989). Every one is bound to make mistakes. SC of India is no exception.

    CMV Rule 100(2)

    (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.
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2012
  7. PatchyBoy

    PatchyBoy Esperto

    Messages:
    2,438
    Bangalore
    The above snippet from the SC ruling makes it clear that this ruling was already given earlier and this was not happening only because someone filed a PIL now.

    My contention is:

    1. CMV Rule 100(2) clearly specifies how the glass should be made, so as to be suitable for use in Automobiles
    2. By stating "Shall be maintained in such a condition", pre-empts any possibility of use of any kind of film, that will result in less than the specified VLT %
    3. While crime behind these glasses was the petitioner's main contention, as a matter of fact the petition was dismissed as the request was for 100% VLT
    4. The rest of the ruling was just an interpretation of the law, which had been given before as well

    What needs to be questioned here is not the SC ruling. It is the CMV rule itself. Most states in the US have specific rules for the rear windows and the rear windscreen. There are states which permit VLT as low as 5% in the rear glasses - check out any stretch limo. The very contention that the police cannot see inside the car is invalid. The VLT specifications are to ensure that the driver of a car has clear visibility of the outside in all light conditions and not the other way round.

    The relevant CMV rules have to be revisited and modified to be suitable for the present times. It came into force in 1989 and a lot has changed after that, except the rule.

    I believe we are shooting the messenger.

    Rajan
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2012
  8. ramjn

    ramjn Staff Member Janitor

    Messages:
    5,243
    Chennai
    Linea 1.3
    1 person likes this.
  9. Arkin

    Arkin Amatore

    70 VLT SUNFILMS ARE PERFECTLY IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CMV ACT

    But films with 70% transparency like the cr70 you took off your palio, (which was probably 50% more transparent than 40% vlt glass allowed by the supreme court)and even transparent films, have been banned.
    Most cars have windows of around 87% transparency. I myself tested my punto's and fiesta's temperlites and found the vlt to be around 88%. Application of 70% films would result in the vlt being reduced to not less than 60 % which would be perfectly in compliance with the cmv act.
    And use of once popular 50 vlt film would result in effecitvely more than 40%, the min vlt allowed by the sc judgement.


    btw, " the use of films is not prevalent in USA."
    Such a glaring error is not expected in a judgment by the apex court of India.

    I feel the hon ble supreme court should reconsider its judgement while considering the next appeal/pil , if any, and allow the use of films of vlt 70 (if not 50%) and above on cars manufactured here.
    Last edited: Dec 25, 2012
    1 person likes this.
  10. amit

    amit Superiore

    Messages:
    767
    Navi Mumbai
    Well written article and makes the same points we at TFI have been making all along.

    In fact, the point of removal of sun films will increase sexual assault on women was raised by me on this very forum.

    Anyway, the rumor mills say that a big shot politician from the sugar belt of Maharashtra is putting a plant to manufacture tinted glasses. If it's true, then that gives us the answer to this ridiculous judgement from the Supreme Court.
    Last edited: Dec 25, 2012
    2 people like this.

Share This Page