Supreme Court’s Order – No Sunfilms Allowed from 4th May 2012
- Thread Starter tornado78
- Start date
Thread Starter
#77
Re: Supreme Court Orders – No Sunfilms Allowed from 4th May 2012
Hi to all TAI Mmebers,
Well a lots of confusion and misunderstanding but following are some of my observations based on the SC order and CMVR Rule
1.) Car manufaturers are supposed to provide VLT for safety glasses with atleast 70% VLT for front and back and 50% VLT for sides. This means that the glasses must be tinted but not laminated with films.
2.) VLT provided by company must not be reduced by owners by any means (films, tinting etc)
But, now if by any mean or may be we can say that if a person got clear glasses on a car and later on if he himself got the tints on the glasses by a process or change his safeti glasses to a tinted one under permissable limits than
he will not be covered under this rule
or still he will be punishable under the rule
By the way he got his glasses tinted not by using films
Anyways i have to start very early tomorrow for my office and i think i will cross delhi border before 8 am and after that time only police will be active, so lets see what will happen in night or days after tomorrow.
But iam sad and thank GOD front film is still not installed (saved 6k).
Hi to all TAI Mmebers,
Well a lots of confusion and misunderstanding but following are some of my observations based on the SC order and CMVR Rule
1.) Car manufaturers are supposed to provide VLT for safety glasses with atleast 70% VLT for front and back and 50% VLT for sides. This means that the glasses must be tinted but not laminated with films.
2.) VLT provided by company must not be reduced by owners by any means (films, tinting etc)
But, now if by any mean or may be we can say that if a person got clear glasses on a car and later on if he himself got the tints on the glasses by a process or change his safeti glasses to a tinted one under permissable limits than
he will not be covered under this rule
or still he will be punishable under the rule
By the way he got his glasses tinted not by using films
Anyways i have to start very early tomorrow for my office and i think i will cross delhi border before 8 am and after that time only police will be active, so lets see what will happen in night or days after tomorrow.
But iam sad and thank GOD front film is still not installed (saved 6k).
Re: Supreme Court Orders – No Sunfilms Allowed from 4th May 2012
suppose my front and rear is 72% vlt and i install a 76% vlt film over it am i still breaking the law? and my sides are 70% vlt glass i install 60%vlt and another coat of 76% vlt?
would the cops have a meter to measure the vlt or just play the guessing game?
by the way cops in mumbai start hiding behind signals or wherever by 7am
suppose my front and rear is 72% vlt and i install a 76% vlt film over it am i still breaking the law? and my sides are 70% vlt glass i install 60%vlt and another coat of 76% vlt?
would the cops have a meter to measure the vlt or just play the guessing game?
by the way cops in mumbai start hiding behind signals or wherever by 7am
Last edited:
Re: Supreme Court Orders – No Sunfilms Allowed from 4th May 2012
What happens if some 1 puts transparent films like the vcool how will the cops know that films are installed ? And what about certain cars which have not come with 70% vlt from car makers ? Can't people then put films upto 70% then ?
What happens if some 1 puts transparent films like the vcool how will the cops know that films are installed ? And what about certain cars which have not come with 70% vlt from car makers ? Can't people then put films upto 70% then ?
Re: Supreme Court Orders – No Sunfilms Allowed from 4th May 2012
what i meant was that a manufacturer does not provide any tinting in the glasses. So they are 100%VLT.
If i put up those films with 50% on sides and 70% on the front how Am i breaking the law? They are the permissible limits as per the motor vehicle act right?
what i meant was that a manufacturer does not provide any tinting in the glasses. So they are 100%VLT.
If i put up those films with 50% on sides and 70% on the front how Am i breaking the law? They are the permissible limits as per the motor vehicle act right?
Re: Supreme Court Orders – No Sunfilms Allowed from 4th May 2012
It has nothing to do with crime or any related things..anytime cops can stop any vehical and conduct a checkup..For that matter the window panes are not permanent fixtures neither doors are.![[frustration]](https://www.theautomotiveindia.com/forums/images/smilies/Frustration.gif "Frustration [frustration]")
Now this is Height of harassment and arrogance from government towards car owner (pvt) minorities...shame on you Indian judiciary and government for such blatant and amateur laws .
In my life I haven't heard anything related to safety for public transports,auto-rickshaws,trucks, buses,pickup vans et al.those closed box pickup vans and underneath of luxury buses are cloud nine transport means for all sort criminal and antisocial related activities
It has nothing to do with crime or any related things..anytime cops can stop any vehical and conduct a checkup..For that matter the window panes are not permanent fixtures neither doors are.
Now this is Height of harassment and arrogance from government towards car owner (pvt) minorities...shame on you Indian judiciary and government for such blatant and amateur laws .
In my life I haven't heard anything related to safety for public transports,auto-rickshaws,trucks, buses,pickup vans et al.those closed box pickup vans and underneath of luxury buses are cloud nine transport means for all sort criminal and antisocial related activities
Last edited:
Re: Supreme Court Orders – No Sunfilms Allowed from 4th May 2012
In a way you are right but the films must not be dark ones I mean the black ones . I find no problem if that's the case . But I think car markers do provide some % though iam not sure about it tornado can you pls clear the air here pls .
In a way you are right but the films must not be dark ones I mean the black ones . I find no problem if that's the case . But I think car markers do provide some % though iam not sure about it tornado can you pls clear the air here pls .
Re: Supreme Court Orders – No Sunfilms Allowed from 4th May 2012
kerala dgp has said that vehicle owners will not be harassed for sunfilm but let vehicle owners themselves remove the film. dont know how long he will stick on to his word
kerala dgp has said that vehicle owners will not be harassed for sunfilm but let vehicle owners themselves remove the film. dont know how long he will stick on to his word
Re: Supreme Court Orders – No Sunfilms Allowed from 4th May 2012
No, they were not legal, had 40% visibility plus blackish tone, there was also no VLT% stamp on the film ,so i got it removed.
I am not getting my other cars tints removed for the time being, as they all are within permissible limit and have VLT% stamps on them.
No, they were not legal, had 40% visibility plus blackish tone, there was also no VLT% stamp on the film ,so i got it removed.
I am not getting my other cars tints removed for the time being, as they all are within permissible limit and have VLT% stamps on them.
Re: Supreme Court Orders – No Sunfilms Allowed from 4th May 2012
i think i will wait and see what happens won't use my car for a while, wait till things cool down, just like other laws like smoking in public and guthka ban.
i think i will wait and see what happens won't use my car for a while, wait till things cool down, just like other laws like smoking in public and guthka ban.
Re: Supreme Court Orders – No Sunfilms Allowed from 4th May 2012
+1 to this
I would prefer Tint for safety reasons any day,it actually prevents road rage as people cant make eye contact with you & i am backing that 100%. Obviously you will add tint levels with what you are comfortable with,my mom finds vlt 35 perfect for her car & vision.
Come on i dont want people to take clear notice a lady is travelling alone in a car at night.
I want to bring a recent incident of attempted theft on us, i was travelling from Tamil Nadu to Bangalore after clearing off a property of ours,as you can imagine real estate prices today its clear that i was carrying alot of money.
I was keeping my eyes peeled for anything suspicious around the car & as i left the register office two men on a bike followed some distance away,but since my car was tinted they did not realize i was looking at them clearly(my car had vlt 20 on the sides & 35 for the rear windscreen),i could see they were discussing there tactics looking at the car & watched them twitch as i fooled them into thinking i was taking a turn at a junction,my next step was tactical,i blocked traffic behind me by slowing down & stepped on the throttle (something which F1 drivers do after safety car lap,it gives you an advantage), well this worked as they could not catch up to the car as i was hitting the highway.
But i know there is a law which says you cannot go below vlt 50 for the sides,but i would want to hope cops dont start enforcing this seriously(just like tint laws for yellow boards here in Bangalore after a cab crime was commited) as i prefer tinting for my car.
+1 to this
I would prefer Tint for safety reasons any day,it actually prevents road rage as people cant make eye contact with you & i am backing that 100%. Obviously you will add tint levels with what you are comfortable with,my mom finds vlt 35 perfect for her car & vision.
Come on i dont want people to take clear notice a lady is travelling alone in a car at night.
I want to bring a recent incident of attempted theft on us, i was travelling from Tamil Nadu to Bangalore after clearing off a property of ours,as you can imagine real estate prices today its clear that i was carrying alot of money.
I was keeping my eyes peeled for anything suspicious around the car & as i left the register office two men on a bike followed some distance away,but since my car was tinted they did not realize i was looking at them clearly(my car had vlt 20 on the sides & 35 for the rear windscreen),i could see they were discussing there tactics looking at the car & watched them twitch as i fooled them into thinking i was taking a turn at a junction,my next step was tactical,i blocked traffic behind me by slowing down & stepped on the throttle (something which F1 drivers do after safety car lap,it gives you an advantage), well this worked as they could not catch up to the car as i was hitting the highway.
But i know there is a law which says you cannot go below vlt 50 for the sides,but i would want to hope cops dont start enforcing this seriously(just like tint laws for yellow boards here in Bangalore after a cab crime was commited) as i prefer tinting for my car.
I don't understand how come in their order Hon'ble supreme court can assume that all the cars come factory fitted with tinted glasses just because it has been said like this under some MVA Act 
People who have factory fitted tinted glasses are at an advantage because otherwise as per the order nothing extra can be added to the windows
This is what the order states clearly:-
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.
How much will it cost to replace my swift's glasses with tinted ones, anyone?
People who have factory fitted tinted glasses are at an advantage because otherwise as per the order nothing extra can be added to the windows
This is what the order states clearly:-
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.
How much will it cost to replace my swift's glasses with tinted ones, anyone?
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: Supreme Court Orders – No Sunfilms Allowed from 4th May 2012
you mean tinted from company ?
you mean tinted from company ?
Re: Supreme Court Orders – No Sunfilms Allowed from 4th May 2012
How far have they implemented the earlier rule? Rule which lays down the visibility limit of sun films. Answer is known to all. Still you can find cars with very low visibility tints. Why?
Tints within permisible visibility have many advantages.
Heat rejection----efficient use of ac----less use of fuel------longer lasting fuel resource----lesser effect on global warming.
In other words, this step supports
Pollution
Global warming
Wastage of fuel
Increase unemployment (This step will drastically reduce the sale of sunfilm).
Instead of completely banning, they should enforce the earlier rule stringently, without exception. That would be a WIN WIN situation for all of us.
To me, complete ban of use of sun film is ********.
How far have they implemented the earlier rule? Rule which lays down the visibility limit of sun films. Answer is known to all. Still you can find cars with very low visibility tints. Why?
Tints within permisible visibility have many advantages.
Heat rejection----efficient use of ac----less use of fuel------longer lasting fuel resource----lesser effect on global warming.
In other words, this step supports
Pollution
Global warming
Wastage of fuel
Increase unemployment (This step will drastically reduce the sale of sunfilm).
Instead of completely banning, they should enforce the earlier rule stringently, without exception. That would be a WIN WIN situation for all of us.
To me, complete ban of use of sun film is ********.
Nozzlering, considering my bad luck and no contacts with people in power I am sure I can be fined for z-black film even with no tints
so whether that rule will be implemented or not is not my concern right now. but I don't want to be the only person to ever get caught and fined for it
I guess Getting it from Mayapuri will be more pocket friendly if there are/were some models with company fitted tinted glasses![[evil]](https://www.theautomotiveindia.com/forums/images/smilies/Evil.gif "Evil [evil]")
so whether that rule will be implemented or not is not my concern right now. but I don't want to be the only person to ever get caught and fined for it
I guess Getting it from Mayapuri will be more pocket friendly if there are/were some models with company fitted tinted glasses