Supreme Court decision on tinted glass car films clarified

Supreme Court decision on tinted glass car films clarified

SHARE
On April 27, 2012, the Supreme Court banned the use of black films on the car windows / windscreens and clarified the use of tinted glasses in cars. There is a lot of confusion about the exact nature of the order passed by the Supreme Court in this regard. Does it completely ban any kind of blank films being used on the car windows? Or, does it ban merely those black films that block Visual Light Transmission (VLT) beyond the permissible limit with the black films within those limits remaining permissible? The newspaper reports (see one here) are confusing in this regard. An effort is made in this article to clarify the Supreme Court order on this issue.

 

The aforesaid order was passed by a 3-Judge bench of the Supreme Court [Chief Justice S.H. Kapadia, Justice A.K. Patnaik, and Justice Swatanter Kumar] in the case of Avishek Goenka v. Union of India [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 265 of 2011]. You can download this order from here.

 

Let me point out at the outset itself that the Supreme Court has banned all kinds of black films on car windows. This means that you can’t have any type of film attached or affixed or pasted to any of your car windows irrespective of how much percentage of light is blocked or permitted. Why do the newspapers reports then mention something like this “…if your car has black film on the front and rear windscreens that blocks light by more than 30% and the tint on the side window panes is more than 50%, then you could be in contempt of court in addition to being prosecuted as per the rules provided under the Motor Vehicles Act”?

 

In fact, the decision has been wrongly interpreted by the media. The above-mentioned limits of 30% and 50% on the front/rear windscreens and side windows, respectively, are in fact the maximum permissible limits for the tinted glass that comes with the car when you buy it from the manufacturer. In so far as the black films (of any shades, grey or fully black) are concerned, they are completely banned irrespective of the percentage of visual light transmission (VLT) blocked or allowed by them.

 

Have a look at the following extract from the said Supreme Court order (para 17):
“… 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.”
[emphasis and underlining supplied by me; “IS” in the above para stands for “Indian Standards”]
Then, in para 18 of the said order, it is clarified that:
“… Thus, on the plain reading of the Rule and the IS standards, use of black films of any density is impermissible.”
Also, look at the following observations by the Supreme Court (para 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.”
Finally, in para 27 of the said order, the Supreme Court gave the following directions:
“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 directions contained in this judgment shall become operative and enforceable with effect from 4th May, 2012.”
Thus, it is clear that what is banned by the Supreme Court is all types of films on the windscreens / windows / glasses of the vehicles, irrespective of the percentage of the visual light permitted or blocked. Another important fact is that it is also not permissible to use “any other material” (such as curtains, for example) on the car windows, etc. Thus, it would not be possible to cover the car windows by any other material also, and the ban is not just for the black films.

 

However, the Supreme Court has permitted use of black films in the official cars of the VIPs and VVIPs (ostensibly for security purposes) to be authorised by the competent authorities as mentioned the said order. The expression “VIPs” has not been defined in the said order, leaving it to be flexible and to be decided by the concerned authorities in individual cases. Therefore, the ban on the black films on car windows will apply to commoners like you and me and not to the VIPs. Accordingly, if you’re a commoner and don’t have any chance to get classified as a VIP, remove whatever type of black film (of any shade) is pasted on your car windows.

 

Update (12 July 2012): Times of India reports that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a review petition against its earlier ban order on the tint films in vehicles. This review petition is likely to be heard on 19 July 2012. Further details will be posted here in due course.

 

Update (03 August 2012): The Supreme Court has directed the Director Generals of Police and Commissioners of Police of all states and union territories to strictly comply with the aforesaid SC judgment on the use of tinted glasses in vehicles, or else face contempt of court action. The court directed the police forces in the country to charge sheet / challan all the offending vehicles which continue to use tinted glasses in violation of the law. In addition to that, it also directed the police to take immediate measures to remove tinted materials pasted on safety glasses in the vehicles. You can download this order of the Supreme Court from here.

Facebook Comments

Powered by TG Facebook Comments

  • remesh99

    Those Supreme Court ***** are not concerned about the security of common man in India. The shading film was very helpful for a family to travel safely.  Actually our mothers, sisters and daughter can sit inside the car without facing prying eyes from outside.  The film was also helpful when we park the car outside in sunlight.  Hope somebody will move for an appeals.

    Jai Hind.
    Ramesh Kumar & Mohamed Rafi from Kerala.

  • Law is Law. it is equal for everyone.. for a moment i can agree that for the safety purpose VIPs and V VIPs cars are not a part of the Decision. but what about when their children and other relationships use that car ??? which is usually seen in Delhi or India.
    and last but not least Crime Wagon-R, Polo, Santro ya I-10 jaisi caro mai km hota h.. or BMW, Fortuner, Scorpio, jaisi badi SUV’s m hota h sir, jinki Film aaj bhi chadhi h… or POLICE wale unka chalan nhi kat te…….
     

  • remesh99

    Those Supreme Court ***** are not concerned about the security of common man in India. The shading film was very helpful for a family to travel safely.  Actually our mothers, sisters and daughter can sit inside the car without facing prying eyes from outside.  The film was also helpful when we park the car outside in sunlight.  Hope somebody will move for an appeals.

    Jai Hind.
    Ramesh Kumar & Mohamed Rafi from Kerala.

  • Rahulxs

    remesh99, thats absolutely true. Now antisocial elements can see who is sitting inside and how many. Makes their job much more convenient. Not to mention, air conditioning will be lot less effective and we will bake inside our cars. Petrol/diesel consumption will also go up and Ac life will decrease. The law, esp. in India, is always an ass!

  • Law is Law. it is equal for everyone.. for a moment i can agree that for the safety purpose VIPs and V VIPs cars are not a part of the Decision. but what about when their children and other relationships use that car ??? which is usually seen in Delhi or India.
    and last but not least Crime Wagon-R, Polo, Santro ya I-10 jaisi caro mai km hota h.. or BMW, Fortuner, Scorpio, jaisi badi SUV’s m hota h sir, jinki Film aaj bhi chadhi h… or POLICE wale unka chalan nhi kat te…….

  • Rahulxs

    remesh99, thats absolutely true. Now antisocial elements can see who is sitting inside and how many. Makes their job much more convenient. Not to mention, air conditioning will be lot less effective and we will bake inside our cars. Petrol/diesel consumption will also go up and Ac life will decrease. The law, esp. in India, is always an ass!

  • samy7269

    I have 50% VLT sun control film on side windows of my car and 70% on front and back on two of my cars and anybody with sound eyes and mind can see that everything is totally visible inside, there is no hindrance whatsoever in the vision to see how many people are inside and whats happening inside. This law should be imposed only on black-out films which actually cause visibility problems. I got very expensive films installed a few months back (abiding by the law for VLT) to protect my car’s interior from sun and save some energy and fuel by reducing cooling loss and I’m sure there are a lot of common people who have done the same. I want to ask Have we done any sort of crime? Why is this law being imposed on us? Why is that a common man always suffers in this country? Why should we lose money specially during such inflation due to corruption? We should be paid compensation for our loss. Everybody from judges to politicians keep telling us from time to time where a common man stands in this country and how helpless he is. These things add up to already high stress levels in Indians and keep killing our quality of life. They should rather use their time and resources to improve driving conditions, think of how to impose lane driving and strict speed limits on us, Not letting people stop or park in middle of roads (specially buses), better signage and other stuff that will improve conditions for all of us, but they would rather put personal intrests on top of that and waste taxpayer’s money in every way possible. It disgusts me every time i think of all these problems that they purposely neglect or dodge and we let them do it.

  • I share your sentiments. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has not considered the other aspects of using films that are within the limits prescribed in the Motor Vehicle Rules. It has mechanically approved the rule that there shall be no film at all. It has even mechanically held that once a specific glass has been affixed in a car, you cannot change its status at a later time even if you’re doing that within the permissible limits under the same rule. For example, if a car manufacturer has used a glass with 100% VLT, while the rule itself permits 70% VLT (on front and rear side glasses), the Supreme Court judgment says that you CANNOT change this status later on. So, whatever is done by the manufacturer is final, even if the rule permits more. Perhaps, there is a need to modify such mechanical interpretation of the rule.

  • samy7269

    I have 50% VLT sun control film on side windows of my car and 70% on front and back on two of my cars and anybody with sound eyes and mind can see that everything is totally visible inside, there is no hindrance whatsoever in the vision to see how many people are inside and whats happening inside. This law should be imposed only on black-out films which actually cause visibility problems. I got very expensive films installed a few months back (abiding by the law for VLT) to protect my car’s interior from sun and save some energy and fuel by reducing cooling loss and I’m sure there are a lot of common people who have done the same. I want to ask Have we done any sort of crime? Why is this law being imposed on us? Why is that a common man always suffers in this country? Why should we lose money specially during such inflation due to corruption? We should be paid compensation for our loss. Everybody from judges to politicians keep telling us from time to time where a common man stands in this country and how helpless he is. These things add up to already high stress levels in Indians and keep killing our quality of life. They should rather use their time and resources to improve driving conditions, think of how to impose lane driving and strict speed limits on us, Not letting people stop or park in middle of roads (specially buses), better signage and other stuff that will improve conditions for all of us, but they would rather put personal intrests on top of that and waste taxpayer’s money in every way possible. It disgusts me every time i think of all these problems that they purposely neglect or dodge and we let them do it.

  • I share your sentiments. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has not considered the other aspects of using films that are within the limits prescribed in the Motor Vehicle Rules. It has mechanically approved the rule that there shall be no film at all. It has even mechanically held that once a specific glass has been affixed in a car, you cannot change its status at a later time even if you’re doing that within the permissible limits under the same rule. For example, if a car manufacturer has used a glass with 100% VLT, while the rule itself permits 70% VLT (on front and rear side glasses), the Supreme Court judgment says that you CANNOT change this status later on. So, whatever is done by the manufacturer is final, even if the rule permits more. Perhaps, there is a need to modify such mechanical interpretation of the rule.

  • Guest

    One of the comment said “our mothers, sisters and daughters can sit inside the car without facing
    prying eyes from outside.  The film was also helpful when we park the
    car outside in sunlight”.  This is the truth.  A/C do not function properly. There is no safety for our Lap Tops, Brief cases kept in the car.  More than anything we lost our privacy. These “****” sitting at the apex court are making our life miserable.  Our police force and security service do not have capacity to catch terrorist. And they impose this kind of foolish regulations on common people like us. lf I am a terrorist – I will ware a “BURKHA” and travel in the car. ****** – They are treating us like animals. I spent so much for putting the black film on the car’s glass. It improved cars aesthetics and a/c performance. These ***** snatched away my driving pleasure.
    Why VIP are excluded. Most terrorist are escorted by VIP’s. What is the definition of VIP.  *******

  • Jayaram_R

    One of the comment said “our mothers, sisters and daughters can sit inside the car without facing
    prying eyes from outside.  The film was also helpful when we park the
    car outside in sunlight”.  This is the truth.  A/C do not function properly. There is no safety for our Lap Tops, Brief cases kept in the car.  More than anything we lost our privacy. These “****” sitting at the apex court are making our life miserable.  Our police force and security service do not have capacity to catch terrorist. And they impose this kind of foolish regulations on common people like us. lf I am a terrorist – I will ware a “BURKHA” and travel in the car. ****** – They are treating us like animals. I spent so much for putting the black film on the car’s glass. It improved cars aesthetics and a/c performance. These ***** snatched away my driving pleasure.
    Why VIP are excluded. Most terrorist are escorted by VIP’s. What is the definition of VIP.  *******

  • Dinesh D

    for my family i am the VIP so wthats wrong in keeping a tint for my cae

  • Dinesh D

    for my family i am the VIP so wthats wrong in keeping a tint for my cae

  • Well the ruling is acceptable..but wht bout the ppl whose cars windows(read cars manufactured before the ruling came in vogue) do not have the required sun protection… Are we not allowed UV protection?? I think the 50% VLT should be permitted in cars as they are quite effective in blocking the UV rays which are quite detrimental to health…

  • Well the ruling is acceptable..but wht bout the ppl whose cars windows(read cars manufactured before the ruling came in vogue) do not have the required sun protection… Are we not allowed UV protection?? I think the 50% VLT should be permitted in cars as they are quite effective in blocking the UV rays which are quite detrimental to health…

  • first of all anyone ask for SC judges is it applicable on these Judges ..nooooo it is only for common most of these man criminal how many scams comes in front of media daily one and two what they do.. millions r theft  by politician what they do about that cases stil they are enjoyed in AC cars and enjoy blackfilms wd Z securities so all criminals are stil in black films .. NOW INDIAN PEOPLES NEED TO COME OUTSIDE OF OUR HOUSES AND NEED TO PROTEST THESE ALL.. WHY COMMON MAN SUFFER ALWAYS.. NOW TIME COMES AGAIN NEED TO MORE INDEPENDENCE FROM OUR OWN THIEF’S… 

  • first of all anyone ask for SC judges is it applicable on these Judges ..nooooo it is only for common most of these man criminal how many scams comes in front of media daily one and two what they do.. millions r theft  by politician what they do about that cases stil they are enjoyed in AC cars and enjoy blackfilms wd Z securities so all criminals are stil in black films .. NOW INDIAN PEOPLES NEED TO COME OUTSIDE OF OUR HOUSES AND NEED TO PROTEST THESE ALL.. WHY COMMON MAN SUFFER ALWAYS.. NOW TIME COMES AGAIN NEED TO MORE INDEPENDENCE FROM OUR OWN THIEF’S…

  • Absolute nonsense.. how can our judges take such an illogical decision..health issues are not of any  concern?? First your petrol consumption will go up because you cant do without the ac in this scorching heat, second you get tanned big time… third further distinction for VVIPS…!! If permissible limits help them with their objective then why take such an action. Many people get alergic reactions from sun even after using SPF. Then what exactly is this?? A clause to help sunscreen producers/ fair & lovely’ sell more or do we need more cancer patients…?? Also shouldnt the govt be sensitive enough to ensure good infrastructure (complete coverage of metro for ex) before giving out this ruling..?? Are we sure our judges are well educated, have they even thought of these issues?? Media has no role to play…why is everyone silent?? its the most ridiculous law ever.. all i can see is more people bribing traffic police.. what is happening to our country? In USA, even the bus drivers have sufficient protection from sun..here in India..the only option is to be a VVIP… 

  • Absolute nonsense.. how can our judges take such an illogical decision..health issues are not of any  concern?? First your petrol consumption will go up because you cant do without the ac in this scorching heat, second you get tanned big time… third further distinction for VVIPS…!! If permissible limits help them with their objective then why take such an action. Many people get alergic reactions from sun even after using SPF. Then what exactly is this?? A clause to help sunscreen producers/ fair & lovely’ sell more or do we need more cancer patients…?? Also shouldnt the govt be sensitive enough to ensure good infrastructure (complete coverage of metro for ex) before giving out this ruling..?? Are we sure our judges are well educated, have they even thought of these issues?? Media has no role to play…why is everyone silent?? its the most ridiculous law ever.. all i can see is more people bribing traffic police.. what is happening to our country? In USA, even the bus drivers have sufficient protection from sun..here in India..the only option is to be a VVIP…

  • Tinted glass i banned for cars in India, but why burqa is permitted?

  • Tinted glass i banned for cars in India, but why burqa is permitted?

  • vinod sood

    A traffic constabe, just by looking at a moving car, can not distinguish between a factory fitted tinted glass window (which the court has allowed) and a film pasted tinted glass window (which the court has not allowed). Should he from now onwards stop every running/moving car wint tinted glass windows (even within permissible tint limits) to check the film on the windows. The court should not have created this distinction between these two forms of car windows tints.

  • vinod sood

    A traffic constabe, just by looking at a moving car, can not distinguish between a factory fitted tinted glass window (which the court has allowed) and a film pasted tinted glass window (which the court has not allowed). Should he from now onwards stop every running/moving car wint tinted glass windows (even within permissible tint limits) to check the film on the windows. The court should not have created this distinction between these two forms of car windows tints.

  • Kapil

    The police is not enforcing this ruling on the ones who actiually need to be put on leash. It is ordinary ppl like us who are being challaned (who are concerned about AC cooling, family safety, etc.). I was stopped by a cop last week, who was wearing black shades and found my car glasses dark!! While I complained that he is not doing anything about another car whose glasses were as dark as a black hole, he replied that he can attend to one car at a time- the car was a WagonR and bore a “police” sticker.
    Dear Mr. Justice Kapadia, While we appreciate your ruling in terms of the safety of ppl, however, you have caused unnecessary harassment to public at large.

  • Kapil

    The police is not enforcing this ruling on the ones who actiually need to be put on leash. It is ordinary ppl like us who are being challaned (who are concerned about AC cooling, family safety, etc.). I was stopped by a cop last week, who was wearing black shades and found my car glasses dark!! While I complained that he is not doing anything about another car whose glasses were as dark as a black hole, he replied that he can attend to one car at a time- the car was a WagonR and bore a “police” sticker.
    Dear Mr. Justice Kapadia, While we appreciate your ruling in terms of the safety of ppl, however, you have caused unnecessary harassment to public at large.

  • “… Thus, on the plain reading of the Rule and the IS standards, use of black films of any density is impermissible…”
    What about the “Brown” or “Dark Brown” Films?

  • “… Thus, on the plain reading of the Rule and the IS standards, use of black films of any density is impermissible…”
    What about the “Brown” or “Dark Brown” Films?

  • All kinds of dark films are declared impermissible.

  • All kinds of dark films are declared impermissible.

  • sakh_bombay

    Our country is going from bad to worse in terms of security and standard/cost of living. If an authority like supreme court has the ability of issuing an order which is highly illogical and detrimental to public – health and cost wise both, then i wonder what the lower courts would be doing on a daily basis. The order states that “A device called luxometer can measure the level of opaqueness in windows owing to the application of black films but this device is a scarce resource and is very scantily available with the police personnel in India”. It is quite obvious a fact that with all the scams being committed by government how could our poor police personnel get these devices after all we are a poor country (only because of the uneaducated and greedy ministers). Rather than enforcing the already existing law permitting a certain percentage of UV protection the judge has very conveniently distuebed the lives of all us law-abiding citizens. The ironical part for us Indians is that we cannot do anything about it and need to just helplessly follow such uncalled for directives. What the judge also failed to realise or comprehend is that India is already reeling under a high current account deficit and how this ruling would directly increase fuel consumption and thus add to the deficit.
    Rather than banning all films altogether the judge could have shown a bit more sensibility and faith in the country’s police?? and made them enforce the existing law more stictly. Does the judge travel in a tinted car?? i am sure he would be having a VIP badge.This order is a large BLACK SPOT on the Ability and Competitiveness of the legislature of India.

  • sakh_bombay

    Our country is going from bad to worse in terms of security and standard/cost of living. If an authority like supreme court has the ability of issuing an order which is highly illogical and detrimental to public – health and cost wise both, then i wonder what the lower courts would be doing on a daily basis. The order states that “A device called luxometer can measure the level of opaqueness in windows owing to the application of black films but this device is a scarce resource and is very scantily available with the police personnel in India”. It is quite obvious a fact that with all the scams being committed by government how could our poor police personnel get these devices after all we are a poor country (only because of the uneaducated and greedy ministers). Rather than enforcing the already existing law permitting a certain percentage of UV protection the judge has very conveniently distuebed the lives of all us law-abiding citizens. The ironical part for us Indians is that we cannot do anything about it and need to just helplessly follow such uncalled for directives. What the judge also failed to realise or comprehend is that India is already reeling under a high current account deficit and how this ruling would directly increase fuel consumption and thus add to the deficit.
    Rather than banning all films altogether the judge could have shown a bit more sensibility and faith in the country’s police?? and made them enforce the existing law more stictly. Does the judge travel in a tinted car?? i am sure he would be having a VIP badge.This order is a large BLACK SPOT on the Ability and Competitiveness of the legislature of India.

  • gansam

    Our SC and Legislature keep changing their stand from time to time. When the sun film companies sold the films which were approved by the same law a year or two back are now not approved. So the law allowed these companies to sell and reap profits out of it.
    Rather than enforcing the already existing law where you were allowed to paste films that allow 30% & 50% VLT blockage on front/rear and side windows respectively and the inability of the RTA to enforce by use of devices to check them the citizens of this country are being punished for following the earlier rules to the core. It is always those who get punished for following the law of the mother land rather than the people who do not follow it. In this case any RTA approved film would have cost close to 15,000 whereas any unapproved film would have been available for 3,000 to 5,000. Who is being punished severly the one who followed or the one did not??
    The same thing is good with the use of helmets, if we were to go back to history the laws were changed from time to time and the poort citizens were the ones who are to suffer.
    What is lawful today in this country could become unlawful tomorrow. SC should have enforced the RTA to strictly enforce the existing law rather than coming up with a easier one. Again who is gaining from these changes, earlier they made money by selling these films now they are ming maony for removing the same.
    It is a matter of time, the law would again be changed and pasting of the films would become lawful. We also need to come up with a penalty for all those firms that kept manufacturing these films since May 2012 after the SC verdict and the car showrooms that kept selling them to the poor citizens for the last 5 months.
     

  • gansam

    Our SC and Legislature keep changing their stand from time to time. When the sun film companies sold the films which were approved by the same law a year or two back are now not approved. So the law allowed these companies to sell and reap profits out of it.
    Rather than enforcing the already existing law where you were allowed to paste films that allow 30% & 50% VLT blockage on front/rear and side windows respectively and the inability of the RTA to enforce by use of devices to check them the citizens of this country are being punished for following the earlier rules to the core. It is always those who get punished for following the law of the mother land rather than the people who do not follow it. In this case any RTA approved film would have cost close to 15,000 whereas any unapproved film would have been available for 3,000 to 5,000. Who is being punished severly the one who followed or the one did not??
    The same thing is good with the use of helmets, if we were to go back to history the laws were changed from time to time and the poort citizens were the ones who are to suffer.
    What is lawful today in this country could become unlawful tomorrow. SC should have enforced the RTA to strictly enforce the existing law rather than coming up with a easier one. Again who is gaining from these changes, earlier they made money by selling these films now they are ming maony for removing the same.
    It is a matter of time, the law would again be changed and pasting of the films would become lawful. We also need to come up with a penalty for all those firms that kept manufacturing these films since May 2012 after the SC verdict and the car showrooms that kept selling them to the poor citizens for the last 5 months.

  • Nagendervv vagipuram

    law can be changed but before considering what about people like me, i should exposed to the sun as i have skin related problem 

  • Nagendervv vagipuram

    law can be changed but before considering what about people like me, i should exposed to the sun as i have skin related problem

  • ashishkothare

    I’ve experienced this 2 days back when my license was confiscated due to dark film (originally RTO approved Garware film) was present fully covering the sides and back of the car and a small strip across across the front glass.
    Though the decision regarding removal of the films could be sensible from whatever perspective it has been made there are a few concerns there: (I’m really trying to control my anguish here or else who knows when someone might accuse of passing derogatory statements towards the apex body of this country)

    1. The law is either not stated properly or not enforced in the right way. While I was pulled over for the “crime”, there were 2 cars that were parked across the road (of which I have pictures) with fully covered glasses(all sides/back/front) which the cops were just ignoring in spite of being asked as to why they were not being charged. One of them actually had the audacity to say that since the cars were present on the other side of the road, they were left out.

    2. As for the same side of the road, during the 20 minute span that I was standing there with the upholders/enforcers of the law, there were minimum 4 – 5 private cars with films which were not at all stopped/fined. I say 4 – 5 cars because I have a recording on my mobile for about 1min 20 sec which shows them passing by.

    3. The same cops also say that they are tired of carrying out this order and wish they were on some sort of sick leave just to avoid this duty and avoid answering queries being raised by the common man(Also captured during the 80 Seconds video clip).

    4. On top of everything, the cops mentioned that they are being given targets of tagging 10 such vehicles daily. This means that after catching hold of 10 such scapegoats or “offenders” of the law, they are not required to carry out the duty or that they can do so at their own discretion? Doesn’t this approach of assigning targets itself amount to contempt of the apex body and its judgement?

    5. The best part is that most of the Taxis/Public Transport buses also have their glasses covered with films/advertisements that block the view completely. Whats to be done about them?

    6. Also, there are some premium high-end cars that come with very low visibility glasses themselves. How can the Government justify them to be street-legal?

  • I’ve experienced this 2 days back when my license was confiscated due to dark film (originally RTO approved Garware film) was present fully covering the sides and back of the car and a small strip across across the front glass.
    Though the decision regarding removal of the films could be sensible from whatever perspective it has been made there are a few concerns there: (I’m really trying to control my anguish here or else who knows when someone might accuse of passing derogatory statements towards the apex body of this country)

    1. The law is either not stated properly or not enforced in the right way. While I was pulled over for the “crime”, there were 2 cars that were parked across the road (of which I have pictures) with fully covered glasses(all sides/back/front) which the cops were just ignoring in spite of being asked as to why they were not being charged. One of them actually had the audacity to say that since the cars were present on the other side of the road, they were left out.

    2. As for the same side of the road, during the 20 minute span that I was standing there with the upholders/enforcers of the law, there were minimum 4 – 5 private cars with films which were not at all stopped/fined. I say 4 – 5 cars because I have a recording on my mobile for about 1min 20 sec which shows them passing by.

    3. The same cops also say that they are tired of carrying out this order and wish they were on some sort of sick leave just to avoid this duty and avoid answering queries being raised by the common man(Also captured during the 80 Seconds video clip).

    4. On top of everything, the cops mentioned that they are being given targets of tagging 10 such vehicles daily. This means that after catching hold of 10 such scapegoats or “offenders” of the law, they are not required to carry out the duty or that they can do so at their own discretion? Doesn’t this approach of assigning targets itself amount to contempt of the apex body and its judgement?

    5. The best part is that most of the Taxis/Public Transport buses also have their glasses covered with films/advertisements that block the view completely. Whats to be done about them?

    6. Also, there are some premium high-end cars that come with very low visibility glasses themselves. How can the Government justify them to be street-legal?

  • Hi, those who don’t like this ban by Supreme court please send a mail to PM through: http://pmindia.nic.in/feedback.php

    I have sent the below mail.

    Sub: Unjustified ban on all kinds of suncontrol films for
    car windows by Supreme Court:

    The supreme court has banned the use of any kind of film on
    car glasses through judgment of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 265 of 2011 delivered
    on 27 April 2012. This has resulted in inconvenience and financial loss to
    lakhs of car users in India. Currently the car glasses for most of the cars in
    our country are manufactured without any protection against heat from Sun. As a
    result of this lakhs of car users have to suffer from the heat of the Sun as
    well as spend extra money as the AC is going to use more fuel now. Since the
    Government is giving subsidy on diesel now, in the case of diesel cars it is a
    direct loss to the Government. Hence I request you to use the powers of
    Parliament to make an amendment to Motor Vehicle Act to allow some kind of
    suncontrol film(at least 100 percent Visible Light Transmission) for car
    glasses so that the masses can be saved of the trouble.

  • Hi, those who don’t like this ban by Supreme court please send a mail to PM through: http://pmindia.nic.in/feedback.php

    I have sent the below mail.

    Sub: Unjustified ban on all kinds of suncontrol films for
    car windows by Supreme Court:

    The supreme court has banned the use of any kind of film on
    car glasses through judgment of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 265 of 2011 delivered
    on 27 April 2012. This has resulted in inconvenience and financial loss to
    lakhs of car users in India. Currently the car glasses for most of the cars in
    our country are manufactured without any protection against heat from Sun. As a
    result of this lakhs of car users have to suffer from the heat of the Sun as
    well as spend extra money as the AC is going to use more fuel now. Since the
    Government is giving subsidy on diesel now, in the case of diesel cars it is a
    direct loss to the Government. Hence I request you to use the powers of
    Parliament to make an amendment to Motor Vehicle Act to allow some kind of
    suncontrol film(at least 100 percent Visible Light Transmission) for car
    glasses so that the masses can be saved of the trouble.

  • Ramana

    Please sign this online petition if you are interested.  Please encourage your fiends too.

  • Ramana

    If you are interested, please sign this online petition to Supreme Court of India and share with your friends too.
     https://www.change.org/en-IN/petitions/supreme-court-of-india-please-revisit-the-vlt-verdict?share_id=RvnXaVlGsY&utm_campaign=mailto_link&utm_medium=email&utm_source=share_petition

  • Please sign this online petition if you are interested.  Please encourage your fiends too.

  • Shuchi Roy

    Hi Sir, just came across this post while googling for SC approved permissible limits for films on car. I am confused since this article is a lil old I guess…is there any new changes in the decision? Is this 70% and 50% rule is for films too or just for company manufactured tinted glasses…a lil confused 🙁

  • Shuchi Roy

    Hi Sir, just came across this post while googling for SC approved permissible limits for films on car. I am confused since this article is a lil old I guess…is there any new changes in the decision? Is this 70% and 50% rule is for films too or just for company manufactured tinted glasses…a lil confused 🙁

  • There is no change in the decision thereafter, as far as I know. If you have a company manufactured tinted glass in your car, the permissible limit is maximum up to 30% of blocking of light, i.e., it should permit minimum 70% light. On the other hand, no tinted film is allowed on the glasses of your car, irrespective of the extent of light blocked or permitted.

  • There is no change in the decision thereafter, as far as I know. If you have a company manufactured tinted glass in your car, the permissible limit is maximum up to 30% of blocking of light, i.e., it should permit minimum 70% light. On the other hand, no tinted film is allowed on the glasses of your car, irrespective of the extent of light blocked or permitted.

  • Shuchi Roy

     Ok thanks a lot for the valuable information 🙂

  • Shuchi Roy

    Ok thanks a lot for the valuable information 🙂

  • Hi, Can you please let em know if i can use a sun-Shed..i have removed the black film..and the glasses are see through now…  I attached a sun-shed [black see through attachable net kind of rectangle which can be removed and re-attached)…Is it ok to use it…?? Please answer??

  • In para 27 of the Supreme Court order, it is mentioned that: “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.” Thus, the Supreme Court has prohibited the use of any material on the safety glasses and windscreens. Therefore, legally speaking, use of a sun-shed may also not be allowed.

  • Hi, Can you please let em know if i can use a sun-Shed..i have removed the black film..and the glasses are see through now…  I attached a sun-shed [black see through attachable net kind of rectangle which can be removed and re-attached)…Is it ok to use it…?? Please answer??

  • In para 27 of the Supreme Court order, it is mentioned that: “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.” Thus, the Supreme Court has prohibited the use of any material on the safety glasses and windscreens. Therefore, legally speaking, use of a sun-shed may also not be allowed.

  • does 30 % vilsiblity green color file is allaowed??

  • does 30 % vilsiblity green color file is allaowed??

  • As mentioned by me in another comment, no film of any type is allowed since the words used are “or any other material” that should cover green films also.

  • As mentioned by me in another comment, no film of any type is allowed since the words used are “or any other material” that should cover green films also.

  • anurag banka

    its beyond the realms of logic and reasoning as to why factory fitted  tinted glasses can have vlt specified but not plain glasses with external tints. What is the difference? If glasses have colour inside they are allowed but if they have colour outside they are not allowed. How come all the imbeciles of the country manage to reach  important posts? There should be a CBI inquiry into this.

  • anurag banka

    its beyond the realms of logic and reasoning as to why factory fitted  tinted glasses can have vlt specified but not plain glasses with external tints. What is the difference? If glasses have colour inside they are allowed but if they have colour outside they are not allowed. How come all the imbeciles of the country manage to reach  important posts? There should be a CBI inquiry into this.

  • NANDAMURI DINESH

    what makes difference whether the glass is tinted to 50% or vlt 50% ?

  • How come supreme court has not thought about the people in car film business like “V-kool”, they are taking away their “bread and butter”.
    Also, this is like the cause of “498A and domestic violence” is “marraige” so lets ban “marraige”
    I am wondering that how come such esteemed authority like Supreme court makes this kind of mistakes

  • NANDAMURI DINESH

    what makes difference whether the glass is tinted to 50% or vlt 50% ?

  • How come supreme court has not thought about the people in car film business like “V-kool”, they are taking away their “bread and butter”.
    Also, this is like the cause of “498A and domestic violence” is “marraige” so lets ban “marraige”
    I am wondering that how come such esteemed authority like Supreme court makes this kind of mistakes

  • Kaustubh Bhegade

    Has the Supreme Court made it mandatory for the car manufactures to provide safety glasses with 70% and 50% LVT for windscreen and side glasses respectively at the time of manufacturing itself?

  • Has the Supreme Court made it mandatory for the car manufactures to provide safety glasses with 70% and 50% LVT for windscreen and side glasses respectively at the time of manufacturing itself?

  • There is no such thing in the Supreme Court order like making it mandatory for the car manufactures to provide safety glasses with a specific percentage of VLT at the time of manufacturing itself.

  • There is no such thing in the Supreme Court order like making it mandatory for the car manufactures to provide safety glasses with a specific percentage of VLT at the time of manufacturing itself.

  • Sub: Unjustifiable and irrational  ban on all kinds of suncontrol films for car Glasses by Supreme Court.
    The supreme court has banned the use of all kind of film on car glasses. This has resulted in  lot of hardship to taxpaying  Indian citizens. Currently the car glasses for most of the cars in our country are manufactured without any sun protection . Moreover it will be an added burden on the car user for changing the glasses who are getting crushed under inflation. It is also known that cars without sunscreen will consume more fuel. I strongly oppose and disagree for this totally unjustified and irrational passage of the judgement against common Indian citizen . Hence I request your high command to use the veto powers of the Parliament to make an amendment to Motor Vehicle Act to allow 30% suncontrol film for carglasses so that the Indian citizens are sparred of this unwanted and unjustifiable  hardship

    Dr N. Satish Kumar

  • Sub: Unjustifiable and irrational  ban on all kinds of suncontrol films for car Glasses by Supreme Court.
    The supreme court has banned the use of all kind of film on car glasses. This has resulted in  lot of hardship to taxpaying  Indian citizens. Currently the car glasses for most of the cars in our country are manufactured without any sun protection . Moreover it will be an added burden on the car user for changing the glasses who are getting crushed under inflation. It is also known that cars without sunscreen will consume more fuel. I strongly oppose and disagree for this totally unjustified and irrational passage of the judgement against common Indian citizen . Hence I request your high command to use the veto powers of the Parliament to make an amendment to Motor Vehicle Act to allow 30% suncontrol film for carglasses so that the Indian citizens are sparred of this unwanted and unjustifiable  hardship

    Dr N. Satish Kumar

  • Ratan

    Sir, most of the international criminals do travel via domestic aircraft. Are SC goin to ban airlines? with respectfully i should say non-sense.

  • Ratan

    Sir, most of the international criminals do travel via domestic aircraft. Are SC goin to ban airlines? with respectfully i should say non-sense.

  • sabu

    I am a sun control film fixer saying with respect of supreme court, this law is beaten on my stomach, I lose my income, have any change can make in law?

  • sabu

    I am a sun control film fixer saying with respect of supreme court, this law is beaten on my stomach, I lose my income, have any change can make in law?

  • Hardik Mistry

    This is another source of income for the traffic police. Rape can also be done in the VIP’s car. Why not for them. F*** such government.

  • Dhananjay Kumar Singh

    Can we use curtains to fully cover side glasses. If yes then that will be of 0% VLT. Then how is banning the films with 50% VLT going to solve the purpose ? Isn’t it a mockery in the name of a law ?

  • Hemant Shastri

    The Indian government are full of ******* including the supreme court judges as they do not make any strong law to punish some (culprits) rapist, as well as they make law for whole nation to banned films from vehicles. That means one day this ******* judges will make law to banned all the hotels, guest house and all the other living shelters made of any opaque material, that means according to their brave brain we all should make our shelter of clear glasses. Coz crime occurs more in this shelters than in the cars.

  • sumit

    India is a country truly run by Jokers! both ministers and bureaucrats..
    A small PIL could bring a change which could affect soo many people in the country… Can one imagine that this rule on ban of tinted glass impacts almost more than 80% of the car owners in India… and at 75mn cars, it is troubling 60 million or 6 crore car owners… Pathetic…

    I think before enforcing such a rule, the problems and losses of masses should have been considered… Assuming 3-4 people per car, the rule troubles almost 20% of population in the country… “********?? This rule puts into drains almost 6000cr worth films already on cars… Pehle lagane ka paisa diya, ab nikalne ka do… (This makes me feel ***** are better than govt rules)

    Such rule also gives an additional reason for the greedy traffic cops to dig and find additional reasons to trouble the public and make money in the form of bribe…

    *******…

  • nohid

    Wht they didnt consider that we import almost 90% of our petrol …reducing that tint affect A/c cooling during the day which in turns will cause low average and more load on the engine…thoug in small percentage but multipying with 75mln car users this wil make a huge diffrence on our import bil..

  • jose sebastian

    why hindering the right of privacy by such decisions…in this modern time police has all equipments to find out if any wrong happens in the vehicles.. or they can ask to stop vehicles to inspect…so this decision degrade the dignity of citizen and against constitution.and further law can never regulate the minds of people..then how will anyone expect a positive result by banning sunglass.film..and a rule need to be accepted by community before in force…so as an indian i regreat our apex court decision.

  • chintan

    As per my knowledge if there in no film on car glasses & if we use our car a/c in summer it will consume more power & fuel to cool the car. If we calculate total excess fuel wasted due this type of rules in india then it will have major share in our GDP. Our government & court should check financial effect on our country before making any rules

  • Ajit Tiwari

    what can be done if someone is suffering from sunburn and other climatic problems and seriously requires dark sun control film on the glasses of the car while driving ?

  • Shashangka Bez Boruah

    This is just another thoughtless…. meaningless decision passed by the govt. There is no logic in this. If there is any, then why can’t they order the car manufacturers not to manufacture tinted glass or stop sell of coloured films???? Just harrassing the users.

  • Ravi

    VIPs an commoners….rule is same for one..These so called gods should be screwed.

  • Jaiprakash

    Rule clearly is in the favour of tinted glass manufacturers. We want these glasses to be replaced. We are ready to exchange. Give us subsidy immidiatly.

  • hemant

    there is nothing or no any reason for tinted glass baned in india

  • hemant

    n now also rapes r going on in delhi before 2 to 3 days ago one cab driver raped a girl in delhi in a car n the car glass was not tinted /or there was no any filming on the glass n see our govt

  • rohit

    Govt? r u drunk? The Supreme court of India passed this judgement. What can the government do? U cant blame modi government for everything.

  • Prashant P

    I used light green film on side window and rear glass. The visibility is more than 80%. is green film also not permitted ?

  • As per the judgment, all types of films on the windscreens / windows / glasses of the vehicles, are banned, irrespective of the percentage of the visual light permitted or blocked.

  • Vivek

    Hello Dr.Ashok, I was fined today by the Mumbai RTO for tinted glass. I was surprised that many other cars with the tinted glass were passing by, but RTO Officer was busy arguing with me. As I understand from all the discussions, there is no permissible limit to the tinted glass and it is completely banned. Am I correct ? Surprisingly, RTO officer is not aware these and they wanted me to contact local transport office.

  • You are right. Tinted glass is banned completely. RTO officials must be aware of the ban, but they selectively implement it for their corrupt motives or due to their negligence.

  • Vivek

    Understood. Will get this removed immediately. I am disappointed why this is not implemented on war front, rather than targetting few cars. As you rightly pointed out, this is a corrupt motive because, I pointed out the officials that there were many cars passing with tinted glass and they were just busy penalizing me. They thought I would pay some bribe to get out of this. Can I take action against this ? Can I visit the office and question them why they are not getting this implemented for all the cars, plus, why non-english number plates are ignored etc…I am ready to take the fight.

    Vivek

  • If you have time and energy, you can video-record the cars with tinted glasses parked or passing through a place, in order to confront the RTO officers and traffic police. You can file RTI application(s) with them to find out the rule in this regard and the action taken by them. If needed, you can also approach the court.

  • Rajat

    Hello Sir,

    With due respect, I would like to bring to your knowledge, that despite informing the RTO about tinted glasses used in a car in Delhi, no action is taken till date. It is very disappointing that the officials just take bribe and leave such people.

  • I agree with you. I have also noticed that even in front of my house in Delhi, more than 50% of the cars have tinted glasses now. Seems that the SC order is not being implemented properly. This is the usual system in India. After some initial action, nobody bothers about laws.

  • Pradeep P

    Sir I would like to know wheather I can fix sunfilm of permissible VLT ?, please guide me.

  • Pradeep P

    The rapes which is happening in Delhi and other places are going on, is it because of sunfilms?
    No so according to me as a request a certain percentage of sunfilms can be allowed to get some relief from the sun.
    This has to allowed only to private vehicles.

  • Neha Pangam

    Today I was fined for tinted glass in thane…..the police was indirectly telling me….he can help me get out of this….he also confiscated my license in spite of paying fine….after an heated argument I managed to get back my licence when I said I will take this matter to higher authorities.its just harassment.whole law itself is stupid….tinted glasses being treated as no.1 cause of rape.

  • Vikki

    Is having neon lights or any lights underneath your car legal in India ?

  • Rohit

    if u think the law is stupid, pls file a review petition or curative petition in SC. But dont just complain here and tell people that you were a ‘victim’. The SC had passed the law and every indian has to follow it

  • Rohit

    sunfilms of any kind are banned

  • Mintu

    this is bullshit ,,,,! i have seen many cars in chennai with fully blacked front back n side glasses of the car and no action has been taken against them ! other than them they are stopping and checking other cars which is completely not fare !!!

  • Muhammed Riyaz

    Even silver or white colour????

  • Muhammed Riyaz

    Do i have any option to get special permission for silver tinted fixing for all gasess????

  • As far as I know there is no such option.

  • The judgment is very clear about what is prohibited. But, its implementation is not perfect.

  • Rohit

    ya even orange or green

  • Ajay Tayal

    Is use of removable nets on side screens also banned.

    What about if only one window had it and rest all three side windows, front and back didn’t had any film or screen.

  • rajni

    Not at all, its not happening because of the screened glass, but due to these dark screened glass, if anyone shouts for help, no one would know. I guess thats it. Even i was told by a traffic police to remove the screen from my car last week. I understand the situation so now i am going to remove it.

  • rajni

    Yes, you are right. As a lady, i feel all this is for our own safety. The tinted glass really help the culprits to escape from the eye of police. Its for the safety of all. Need to obey it. Thanks.

  • Tejas Patel

    Do you think all car owner are rapist??
    Is this practise stop or reduce number of rapes??

    Indian Law says 100 criminals could be realesed but an innocent person should not be harassed.
    Here due to some of the people all others are harassed.

  • Tejas Patel

    Respected sir I want to ask you that if you have seen non inplementation of judgemen then as a part of Supreme Court,you should have to expose it as a good intense or can I do it by internet as I can’t go to Delhi!!!
    If it is possible then kindly give me the details and guide me!!!!

  • The non-implementation is rampant and it should be visible to everyone. You can file a PIL or contempt petition in the SC if you so wish. But, it may need your presence in Delhi.

  • Tejas Patel

    Ok sir
    I am managing tohave preset to Delhi
    Can you guide me to file a PIL?
    Can you send me the details and rules for the same?