Tinted film on car windows to be illegal: Supreme Court

Discussion in 'Politics & Society' started by The Messiah, May 3, 2012.

  1. The Messiah

    The Messiah Bow Before Me! Elite Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2010
    Messages:
    10,788
    Likes Received:
    4,552
    What a rediculous and illogical judgement by the court :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:

    1. Law already exists in which one can legally put tints/films in car with 70% visibility in front and rear and 50% visibility on the sides. SC has contradicted an existing law and made a new law even though it has no authority to do so.

    2. It has been banned because of few instances of rape inside a car...so using the same logic the court should also order people to open all there windows and doors of there house since majority of rapes happen indoors.

    3. The court has allowed tinted glass from manufacturers with the 70/50 existing law. Either its safe or its not...the court cant make up its mind. There is no difference between tinted glass and after market films pasted on the glass since visibility would be the same if same 70/50 guidelines are followed. So the court contradicted not only the law but its own judgement aswell.
     
    Known_Unknown likes this.
  2.  
  3. trackwhack

    trackwhack Tihar Jail Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2011
    Messages:
    3,757
    Likes Received:
    2,573
    I agree, this is such a stupid ruling. How is a cop going to figure out if the tint came from the manufacturer or not? Is he going to stop every vehicle to check. morons.
     
  4. The Messiah

    The Messiah Bow Before Me! Elite Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2010
    Messages:
    10,788
    Likes Received:
    4,552
    Tinted glass without any film is allowed but not after market films that as stuck onto the glass. The tinted glass will follow the 70/50 rule but people who use aftermarket films like 3m,vkool etc also follow the same 70/50 visibility rule and will have the same visibility so i dont understand the logic behind this judgement. Hopefully someone will challenge this in court.
     
  5. trackwhack

    trackwhack Tihar Jail Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2011
    Messages:
    3,757
    Likes Received:
    2,573
    I understand baba, I'm asking how will the cop know if the glass is tinted by manufacturer or I've stuck 3M. Will he stop every vehicle to check?
     
  6. Blackwater

    Blackwater Veteran Member Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2012
    Messages:
    21,000
    Likes Received:
    11,839
    Location:
    Akhand Bharat
    From Friday, any tinted film on car windows will be illegal

    So what, who will implement them ???? and if it is implemented 100 ka pati ha na
     
  7. nrj

    nrj Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2009
    Messages:
    9,252
    Likes Received:
    3,347
    Location:
    Brussels
    They stop every vehicle & check the compliance with a handheld device which calculates the visibility of the window glass.
     
  8. The Messiah

    The Messiah Bow Before Me! Elite Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2010
    Messages:
    10,788
    Likes Received:
    4,552
    They will stop the car and if there's a film they'll peel it off and if there isn't any then they'll let you go. They will stop only those cars that they can see have shades or aren't fully transparent...i doubt they'll even stop cars with fully transpararent heat reduction films.

    Only a few in police have it.
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2012
  9. trackwhack

    trackwhack Tihar Jail Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2011
    Messages:
    3,757
    Likes Received:
    2,573
    How is that going to work.

    1) Cop stops me.
    2) Mine is manufacture tinted glass. So he lets me go
    3) Two signals later another cop stops me...

    You get the gist right? Its impossible to implement. Or are they talking about putting a sticker like the emission control one that says Tint Passed

    :facepalm:
     
  10. nrj

    nrj Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2009
    Messages:
    9,252
    Likes Received:
    3,347
    Location:
    Brussels
    Dont know about other places but Pune cops did trouble us several months back where almost all major roads had such checking points.
     
  11. Oracle

    Oracle New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    8,120
    Likes Received:
    1,541
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    If the police do their job with an efficiency of even 10%, there'd be no reason for such stupid laws that do nothing but drain the tax payers. Instead of doing their work, police now have one more way to earn their bribe money.
     
  12. The Messiah

    The Messiah Bow Before Me! Elite Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2010
    Messages:
    10,788
    Likes Received:
    4,552
    Yes it will work like that initially then it will get dragged under the carpet!

    Its an opportunity for cops to make a quick buck and they will make it.

    They cant implement it.
     
  13. Godless-Kafir

    Godless-Kafir DFI Buddha Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    5,829
    Likes Received:
    1,799
    To bad Messiah cant pick up prostatues from connaught palace.
     
  14. Sakal Gharelu Ustad

    Sakal Gharelu Ustad Detests Jholawalas Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2012
    Messages:
    6,687
    Likes Received:
    6,666
    Supreme court has also got its own bunch of monkeys these days.

    After RTE decision, this one comes again to increase the power of state in useless matters.
     
  15. W.G.Ewald

    W.G.Ewald Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2 Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2011
    Messages:
    14,140
    Likes Received:
    8,529
    Location:
    North Carolina, USA
    A driver gets stopped by a policeman and is being cited for not wearing his seat belt.

    Driver: "Officer, how can you tell I wasn't wearing my seat belt? I have tinted windows."

    Policeman: "Because, Sir, it's hanging out the car door."
     
  16. The Messiah

    The Messiah Bow Before Me! Elite Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2010
    Messages:
    10,788
    Likes Received:
    4,552
    Since tinted glass has many uses, will SC revisit the total ban?

    ‘Rose-tinted glasses’, is an idiom which means being overly optimistic, seeing only the pleasant side of things or situations. Modern usage of the idiom however, could denote prejudiced views.


    The apex court has pronounced that the governments must implement the Motor Vehicles Act’s provisions on tinted glasses. Was this a case of looking at the issue through ‘tinted glasses’? If so, they were not rose-tinted! The ‘pleasant side’ of cars with tinted glass windows was ignored. The apex court perhaps missed a trick or two in overlooking an opportunity to examine the validity and rationale of the provisions of the law.

    Most countries have laws governing the use of tinted glasses in cars. There does not seem to be much rationale behind the laws. A belief that they cause accidents is one reason. Do they? Is there statistics to prove this? It does not appear to be backed by statistical evidence. The ubiquitous nature of the law could be a case of ‘monkey see, monkey do’. Considerable variation exists in the details of the law in countries and among states within countries. In India, the law was not implemented for long.

    Now, traffic police have come out with a vengeance in enforcing this archaic rule. Its enforcement gives another opportunity to the more enterprising and unscrupulous among the traffic police to make a quick buck on the side. How would police decide on the amount of light transmission? Would they always carry light meters? Would the meters be always well calibrated?

    The use of the film is so common that it would take a long while to ensure the adherence to the rule. Even then, nothing prevents criminals from using it temporarily for car crimes. The apex court’s decision was given in a PIL seeking a ban on tinted glasses.

    The justification seems to be that crimes are committed in cars with tinted glasses. The court appears to have bought the argument, but stopped short of a complete ban, which would have been entering into the terrain of the executive. Would anyone advocate transparency in bedroom windows because crimes happen therein?

    The logic of the argument that sunscreens on car windows act as cause for crimes is strange. There is no evidence to suggest that tinted glasses encourage or facilitate crimes in cars. It could be argued that transparent car windows aid certain types of crimes against car users.

    Irrational exuberance

    Thieves could find it easier to look for valuables like expensive music system or laptops left behind in the car. Besides, women travelling alone or for that matter, men alone in cars on lonely stretches of roads, could be prime targets of criminals who watch out for and way-lay such victims. Many cases of lone car owners returning from work late at night being targeted have been reported.

    Women say that they would feel much safer having their cars fitted with sunscreen windows. Ironically, the PIL was intended to protect women from crimes. Is this an instance of unintended consequences by the petitioner or irrational exuberance on the part of the court?

    The effect of the court decision could be disastrous. Sunscreen industry creates a lot of wealth. It employs large number of people. Sunscreens prevent glare in cars and elsewhere. An interpretation of the M V Act is that no film is allowed; only tinted-glass is permissible.

    This would throw the film industry out. One of the manufacturers of these films, which they call “Sun control”, is Garware Sun control, an Indian company. The other two are 3M and DuPont, both foreign companies. Garware, the Indian company, has a large market share, claimed to be 70 per cent.

    Unfortunately, the court was perhaps not apprised of the benefits of sunscreen films or the rights of those who make it, those who make a living selling and providing service to users of the film and those who use it.

    The advantages of using the film include, preventing splintering of the glass in accidents reducing injury, preventing harm from ultraviolet radiation, which causes skin cancer, protection of valuables inside cars from prying eyes of thieves, and blocking 75 per cent of solar energy thus, saving on air-conditioning costs.

    Do car-owners have no rights? Do they have no right to protect themselves, their health and their property from murderers, radiation-illnesses, robbers and thieves? Assuming that one-third of the 3 lakh cars in Bangalore have sunscreens and each costs of Rs 1,200, the scrap cost would be Rs 12 crore. The cost of scrapping sunscreen stocks with manufacturers, distributors and dealers would be incalculable. The country’s loss could be enormous.

    This might be a good enough time to revisit the law. Who would bell the cat? Would any activist advocate take it up through a review or curative petition? Or would the government act proactively? The government could move quickly to amend tax laws retrospectively, as in the 2G case. Why would they not do so, in a case where huge national loss in wealth and employment is caused by the court’s decision to enforce a hitherto dormant rule, especially as it leads to jeopardising the safety and health of people, while violating their fundamental rights?

    Since tinted glass has many uses, will SC revisit the total ban?
     
  17. Godless-Kafir

    Godless-Kafir DFI Buddha Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    5,829
    Likes Received:
    1,799
    Messe why this obsession with Tint? What are you up to in that car of yours? I dread to imagine... :facepalm:
     
    W.G.Ewald likes this.

Share This Page