The Sun Film Ban: No Country for Women

Nandini Krishnan

By Nandini Krishnan

It was a sweltering day in my hometown, Chennai, and as my Maruti hatchback crawled through the morning peak-hour traffic, I decided I’d done well not to remove the one thing that protected me from the scorching heat of the midday sun, and the unwanted attention of leering bikers, drivers and commuters – the sun film on my car windows.

The Supreme Court of India had recently banned the use of adhesive black sun-protection film (or ‘sun film’ as it’s called in India), which car manufacturers will apply on windshields and windows for between Rs 10,000 and Rs 35,000. I’d been evading posses of policemen for weeks, but my luck ran out towards the end of August, when I was finally pulled up, on the city’s arterial Mount Road.

“Sir, there’s 50% visibility in the side windows and 70% in the front and back,” I tried arguing.

“Madam, sorry, Supreme Court regulations. Car window should be completely transparent.”

“But tinting of glasses for the same percentage of visibility is allowed. What difference does it make?”

“I don’t know all that, madam. Pay hundred rupees fine. When you have time, get the sun film removed.”

On April 27, the Supreme Court issued an order, effective from May 4, 2012, banning sun film on car windows, in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a man called Avishek Goenka, who calls himself a PIL activist on his Twitter page.

His website, http://saveaamadmi.com, reveals his irritating penchant for spending his leisure hours going through the crime pages of newspapers, filing petitions in the Supreme Court, and typing in upper case.

The author prepares for a day on the road

He claims credit for fresh guidelines issued by the Union Home Ministry, holding telecom service providers accountable for inaccurate information submitted by subscribers for pre-paid and post-paid mobile connections.

His latest cause reads: “users of 2.wheelers & sub 4 lac.fuel eff. cars paying premium for petrol whereas owners of fuel devouring suv.s  devouring subsidised diesel … is it justified ??” It appears that his grouse is against subsidy on the price of diesel, which allows people who can afford cars that cost more than Rs 4 lakh (Rs 400,000) to spend less money on each litre of fuel than people with cheaper cars or bikes.

Though his contention that sun film facilitates rape, kidnapping and smuggling has drawn ire on several sites, including this blog and the comments section of an online petition, he appears to have the overwhelming support of India’s busy Supreme Court judges.

Calling him “public spirited”, the Court held that “alarming rise in heinous crimes like kidnapping, sexual assault on women and dacoity have impinged upon the right to life and the right to live in a safe environment.” Repeatedly citing shortage of policemen and the “scarce” availability of devices such as a luxometer, which can measure the opaqueness of vehicle windows, the apex court decided that the best option was to ban sun film. However, there is no ban on the use of tinted glass with the same visual light transmission (VLT) level. Nor is there a ban on the use of curtains for privacy.

The court also said, “Black films on the vehicles are also at times positively correlated with motor accidents on the roads” and blamed their “comparative visibility” for the fact that “persons driving at high speed, especially on highways, meet with accidents.”

Initially, the ruling wasn’t given much importance by commuters. Perhaps people thought it would only be taken as seriously as other traffic rules in India – wear helmets, wear seat belts, obey signals, drive on the right lane, keep to the left, don’t drink and drive, don’t use mobile phones while driving. After all, the conditional ban on sun protection makes considerably less sense than any of the above.

But in the first week of June, Commissioners of Police across the country were pulled up for not enforcing this particular order, and patrol teams immediately went into overdrive, ripping sun film off windows in addition to imposing punitive fees and threatening to revoke licences.

Once the media took the order seriously, contemplative articles began to question the soundness of the judgment. A report quoted legal experts suggesting that the Supreme Court had effectively brought in a new law.

Several review petitions were filed by manufacturers and distributors of sun film, and one was filed by an association of cancer patients, who contended that exposure to UV rays could worsen their condition.

On August 3, a Bench of the Supreme Court dismissed all the petitions. The Bench cited a “complete research article on  the  cancer  scenario in India” submitted by Goenka to conclude that “cancer is much less in India  [than in developed countries] despite the fact that most of the Indian population is exposed to ultra-violet rays for the larger part of the day for earning their livelihood.” It also helpfully suggested that people who want to protect themselves from UV rays may benefit from sun-block and sunscreen creams.

Not only did this kill an industry worth Rs 150 crore with a single thump of the gavel, but far from protecting women from voyeurs, lechers, and criminals, it only exposed us to sexual harassment. State governments have been known to respond to law and order trouble with knee-jerk reactions. However, the judiciary is usually more circumspect. I was to encounter the effects of this hasty ruling the very next afternoon, on the same road where I was fined and ordered to have the sun film removed the day before.

At a traffic signal, two boys wearing government-school uniforms, began to make lewd gestures at me, catcall, whistle and loudly discuss my appearance with each other. Worse, bikers, auto-men and van drivers peered at the source of their interest, and smiled encouragement, prompting boys about half my age to further their verbal assault on me. There was no policeman in sight.

I later chanced upon an article that assured me the presence of policemen wouldn’t have made much difference. In India, sexual harassment of women is described as “eve-teasing”, as if it were an old fashioned form of courtship. Unable to control crime against women, police across metros (including the national capital, Delhi) have advised us to stay home after 8:00 PM, and to avoid racy clothes that “ask” for rape. Worse, some victims of rape have given the media disturbing accounts of their treatment by the police.

Two years after I’d traded my bike in for a car, to escape being stalked, threatened and groped, a Bench of the highest court had made my life more difficult. A (hopefully) sarcastic comment on one website says: “I travel every day atleast 50 kms from home to office. Most of the private school buses, SRS buses, infant travel vehicles have not yet removed the tint. On the other end I can now easily see who is in the other car/cab and I can watch their move, see when the lady applies lipstick and when she combs her hair because the glass is transparent. [sic.] Thanks to SC and RTO who gave us the opportunity to watch all this and get entertained on the road.”

More direct outbursts have said this is akin to blaming domestic violence on the institution of marriage, or banning helmets so that criminals can’t hide their identities. Other angry responses wonder whether Goenka owns a shop that deals in tinted glass. Certainly the police have benefited enormously, with Chennai and Delhi traffic departments each collecting fines totalling over Rs 1 crore (Rs 10 million) in six weeks.

Less than four years ago, in the wee hours of November 26, 2008, terrorists who had stolen a police vehicle mounted an attack on Mumbai.

A TV journalist was killed by men who were following her car and “teasing” her.

A woman was rendered a quadriplegic when a lorry driver, who was “teasing” her, rammed into her car.

And yet, in this crazy country, where a man walks free six years after brutalising a nurse into a vegetative state, and where it is deemed that only hookers and men should be out at night, a man was able to successfully petition the Supreme Court into selectively banning sun film.

Ironically, it remains the case that someone could draw the curtains, install detachable sun-protection shades, or tint his car windows – all of which are still permissible under the law – and rape someone in his car to his loins’ content.

No women’s group appears to have filed a review petition. Going by the tone of the Bench’s response to the association representing cancer patients, it may not be worth the trouble of filing a petition. Meanwhile, women can wear burkhas if they are uncomfortable with being ogled.

31 Responses to The Sun Film Ban: No Country for Women

  1. nirmalkumar kasilingam says:

    Actually sun film has to be removed from cars of gundas and rowdies and other criminals including those who call themselves VIP or whatever, Those persons are actually committing crime but what is really happening is common man is now cornered by police , he is asked to remove sun films from car , in the last one year I have seen many VIPS vechicles passing through the traffic without any intervention by traffic police…..in othe words I can say that the purpose of the verdict is zero.Once again it is clear that if you have money or power in india you can do anything, but if you are a common man who pay tax regularly then you have to suffer through out your life time……

  2. A M Morawala says:

    This is what happens when a country has incompetent people in high places who do not have the ability to think for themselves. One idiot is enough to fool a bench of jokers.
    The CJI should dismiss these persons (they cannot be called Judges, much less Hon’able) & restore scientifically proved sun protection films.
    And we say we are living in a “developing” country. Where the SC has officials with underdeveloped brains.

  3. Mohit says:

    Is any1 planning to file a pittition in against the ban do let me knw even I m tired of this shitty rule…do let me knw my number 9833312317

  4. vinod verma says:

    The Petition praying 100% VLT was NOT ADMITTED !. Provision of 70% and 50% VLT U/r 100 (of MV Act) was NOT ALTERED !!, but allowed ONLY BY TINTED GLASS (having a tint by Manufacture), and NOT by SUBSEQUENT TREATMENT (by pasting transparent films), even though it ACHIEVES the same END RESULT (!!!) , has been MINDLESSLY DISALLOWED !!!!!!!!! ??????????. Equally MINDLESSLY, the Honb’l, (Learned ?) Judges, (not one but a BUNCH/BENCH of THREE), have been HARPING on Laminated glass sheets (having a layer of plastic (transparent) sheet between two layers of glass, to prevent glass pieces from shattering away and causing injury in case of breakage), DEMONSTRATING TOTAL IGNORANCE, that it is ‘toughened’ glass that is being used in all automobiles at present. Moreover, the “lamination” which the Hbl (?) Judges have insisted between two layers of glass sheets , was ACTUALLY BEEN being used on the inner surface of the glass, to achieve not one, but two purposes, of PREVENTING SHATTERED GLASS PIECES from injuring persons, as well as, controlling VLT. And, it is a TOTAL LOSS of reasoning which “ALLOWS A PLASTIC FILM BETWEEN THE GLASS, but NOT ON IT !!!!!?????”, even if ALL DESIRED END RESULTS ARE BEING ACHIEVED !!!. Therefore, the very WISDOM OF BANNING LAMINATE FILMS on the glass sheets of vehicles, based on the arguments put forth, BECOMES QUESTIONABLE !!!!!!!!!!!. The Hon’ble CJI may well be pleased to REVIEW the IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT banning the Films on glass of automobiles, TOTALLY.

  5. anand says:

    Now it is time to mobilise few people with woman advocates to file a petition to lift the ban on sunfilm. If one mad Goenka could put false figure or magnify the small problem, now we can tell and put the facts and figures that nothing has improved after banning sun film. More and more rapes and especially rape on minors have improved. More murders and bombings in the heart of the city like bangalore, hydrabad etc., Is it all happened behind sunfilm. No sunfilm has not given any shelter form those activities. Is removal of Sunfilm on cars it a PIL. Now if ban is lifted see how many public are responding positively with thanks and releifs before the Supreme Court. This itself shows that the ban has affected the public at large. Hence now it is right time to bring the facts before the SC and plead to lift the ban on sunfilm. Will any one join in this movement.

  6. Arjun says:

    Serious need to reconsider the law. Pathetic, funny, judiciary at its low… Few stupid judges with i one funny goenka making the whole country suffer… please tell me if terrorist uses houses as their hide outs, should we remove all the walls of our houses… There can be domestic violent in married life, so ban marriage too… if such educated judges make such funny act, then the politician are good as per their educational standards. Shame on u judges, Please resign you are not worth to be called justice …

    • Nishant Rana says:

      please i request you all to file a PIL against this law on banning sun films this is the time to get unite and file a petition

  7. syed says:

    i totally agree with all the comments. a couple of days back i was coming home around 10.45 pm with my sister n a couple of bikers passed by. As i had no film, they were able to see me and my sister imside and so they slowed down n were going with my car. I was terrified and immediately called anyone i knew coz d if i called d cops dey would show up in the end n that too just to torture me. I just want to say that if one man can enforce the ban on sunfilms then cant we all reinforce the implementation of sunfilms? As of now i dont travel with my car after 9 pm due to security issues. A grand thanks to the sc… hats off judges.. n coming to rape, in my opinions rapes are likely to increase now because sc has given a golden opportunity to the criminals to choose their prey as there are no sunfilms now, they can get drunk at night and choose their victim..All the best criminals!!!

  8. John says:

    A 21 gun salute to the 3 judge panel, who must have gone through a number of records and racked their brains to come up with this revolutionary judgement. While I fail to understand the logic behind permission for tinted windows while windows with sun film are a ‘no-no’, I agree with many of my fellow citizens against the basis of this judgement. As a law abiding citizen, I”ve removed the sunfilm in my car, which I had put in 2010 when I had purchased my car anew and no such law existed. That being said, I paid a very high premium almost 10% of my vehicle’s value to procure and install a film with 95% VLT even on the side windows, just so that the glass is transparent and I leave no room for argument with a ‘moody’ traffic cop. (Once, I was pulled up by a traffic cop, who checked all my papers and found everything in order and just to milk some 50 bucks said that i had not put on indicators when I pulled over at his behest!!!). Today, after removing the expensive film, the residual glue has reduced visibility greatly and each day as it gathers more dust, the visibility is reducing, not to mention the ugly look it gives to my once elegant car. The government, politicians, the cops and now the judiciary seem to have great pleasure in torturing the law abiding citizens in novel ways.
    I fail to understand why the honorable supreme court does not ban bad roads, power cuts, traffic congestion, unemployment, bribery etc. which would not only reduce such crimes, but contribute to the country’s growth and image. Maybe they are waiting for someone to file a PIL.

  9. anand says:

    Now it is time to represent for revision petition before SC stating that all facts and figures given by by MAd Goenka are wrong and does not match in reality. Since from the day of baning the use of sunfilm , the rape incidents have increased especially more minor and child rape , more murders, and more eve teasings. Open the news paper daily you see atleast 10 rapes, 5 murders, 50 accidents, and many deaths. Now more cancer patients are on the rise. But as a single man,Mad Goenka able to convince the Honourable SC with all the above reasons and put the general public in hardships. Now after banning nothing has improved, nothing has been acheived except putting the public and owners using cars and vehicles at difficult times. More harassment from Police personnel. Many times i have noticed and seen the file pictures in news papers ,for removing sunfilm , there will be four five policeman, one officer not below the rank of Inspector corner the vehicle. I wonder whether they will show the same courage if any rape victim makes a complaint, in nabbing the thief, in controlling the reckless driving and many social problems. Now drunken driving is a menace and i wish the honourable SC will pass some orders suomotto. We expect more judicial pronouncement without testing the right of the human and bringing more responsibility for the police personnel rather than harassing the general public.

  10. Amardeep Kukreja says:

    Is there any end to this attrocity.
    Car films are filling up pockets for the local trafic cops but it wil be a pain in the summers when the car Acs will not work and it will be a pain to travel.

    Sumreme court , HIgh court has turned deaf hears to every car owner who is paying the price for crime done by a dozen criminals
    the entire country is suffering and paying extra amounts for this stupid rule passed by SC

    • anand says:

      Instead of crying why dont we present a revision petition with all facts and figures that nothing has improved and nothing will improve because of ban order. Even recently there was a news telling that a women is being raped for every 5 minutes in India and many rape incidents goes unreported. A good lawyer who can present the case in a clear manner putting the figures and facts correctly before the SC, is required. The Manufacturers of sunfilm, employees and those whose livelihood is effected and car owners should join together and file revision petition. Whether this is possible.

  11. common man says:

    Again… this stupid ruling didn’t consider a family with a breastfed baby. While going out, the tinted glass was a safety behind which the mothers could breast feed their babies. Now, its all like breast feeding in the open.. what a country and what law makers!!!!

  12. Abida says:

    I fully agree with you on this Nandini. it is absolutely ridiculous rule ordered by supreme court. like you, i am also travelling nearly 25 km to office in the car and without sun films, it is horrible to protect ourselves from ‘hot sun’ especially in chennai summer days! i have to cover my hands and face completely to protect from UV rays!!!

    they have made this order in order to prevent kidnapping/ rape etc….. (whereas, police people are making more money! then, what about the recent Delhi bus rape incident??? what about the train rape happened to soumya in kerala??? will supreme court order to women not to travel in bus or train?!!! can we all file a petition against this to supreme court again?

  13. ssri says:

    The kind of atrocities that are happening can only come down by completing the prosecution in time and imposing severe punishment for the culprits. You just cannot keep banning everything where the crime happens. Most of the crime are done by using knifes. Does it mean we ban using knifes at all !

  14. anand says:

    sir,
    the difference between sunfilm and tinted glass is not the issue. The middle and lower class people are not affordable for tinted glasses. Only few people and govt servants extra money recd as bride are affordable for tinted glasses. When the sunfilm which serves the purposes of tinted glasses why it is to banned.

    Secondly, the sunfilm was banned for the reason more rape, more murders, more death etc., have ever statistics was considered how many deaths happened because of sunfilm. Daily accidents due to reckless driving, daily accidents due to non adherence of traffic rules, daily accidents due to bright light during night hours, daily rapes happening in brad day light, daily molestation in work and public places, daily deaths due to dowry, political murders, murder for properties all these things many goes unreported and what steps the Supreme court has taken or created a law to curtail these crimes.

    Many crimes not registered as complaints in police station, if registered case is booked and hearing goes on for ever and finally jail term for two three months and let off. When it is the law in India what made the police to stop the vehicle and tear off the sunfilm and showing arrogance on the innocent. 99% of the car driven with sunfilm are not culprits and 1 % may be the case of culprists. If police has taken stern action, timely judgement by the courts would definitley have solved the issue.
    But now just banning the use of sunfilm nothing has stopped. Daily rapes, murders and much more incidents are happening after the ban. Even today’s news paper 6 persons raped a woman in chandigar and police have registered the case. But now FIR will take month time, judgement will take few years and finally everyone will be let off for want of proof. This incident has happened even after the Delhi’s incident which has sent strong warning to everyone. Where does the mistake lies? Now whether the person who filed PIL will answer for this .And the Honourable Supreme court which has passed order based on the PIL has to reconsider the inconvinience caused to the general public.

    In India all the acts whether it is traffic or criminal, civil everything goes to court and judgement is given accordingly. When it is so why the police stops the car and tear off the sunfilm recklessly interfering in the rights of the person. when police have so much of ppwer or given by the Supreme court why similar steps are not taken for theft , arrest of drivers who kills the innocent public, rappist etc.,

  15. RDR says:

    All the people criticizing the judgement have not read it one bit. This includes the author of this article.

    Usage of sun films was NEVER legal. The manufacturers and mechanics were misleading the public into believing that tinted glasses and sun film is the same thing.

    The author should be a little more prudent when making such sweeping statements.

    It is obvious that just because the author was fooled into putting an illegal sun film, she has written this article to point fingers at others.

  16. Rengarajan says:

    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.

    • Basil Almeida says:

      I agree that the whole debate should not be about shooting the messenger or raking up arguments that do not address the foundation of the judgement.

      With all due respect to the Hon’ble SC, I think CMV Rule 100(2) does not preclude a car owner from fitting sun film. All it does is state that the condition of the glass should be maintained such that the VLT does not fall below the permissible limits. I am struggling to understand how the hon’ble SC came to interpret the Rule as meaning that the glass has to be maintained in same condition as manufactured. If that were to be the case, the language would have clearly stated that no one can change the manufactured parts of the vehicle in any manner. In fact Sec 190 of the CMV Act disallows any changes that violate the standards laid down in the Act or the Rules – and the standard in the Rules are minimum 70% for the front and rear glasses and 50% for the side windows. Any film that stays within these limits would be permissible.
      Any appeal, revision, review against the SC judgement should be squarely addressing this interpretation while the emotional appeals and statistics on health, safety and other aspects should be reserved for lobbying for amending the Rule to bring about more clarity

  17. mrjade says:

    Agree and argue till the other decision from the court or the parlament till the sun film users get relief.Think once how the Diana met and accident ? Just by being hunted by the press reporters when they saw her in the car.This SC order is no way reasonable and is a great threat to the woman privacy and security.Infact many people do not want to get disturbed by the gustures or being peeped out by others. Drunkards even may follow you when they need the money.

    what about the photophobiac people then ? They fear of light than what they had been exposed to till now. More light than what they are accustomed would result in sick to them.

    What about the people who disagree with others interfering whith their private postures ? For example a Natrum sulph patient homeopathically does not want to be looked at while he is doing something else. Others gestures at you would definately effect your whole scenario of thought process.

    A review and cancellation of the order is blindly an essentiality to reduce more crimes.
    Banning black films would result in enormous increase in the rate of crimes of congnizable and uncongnizable than than what is explained in the verdict.

    we are supposed to respect the individual liberty , safety and security specially the woman which I feel is lost in banning the sun film.

  18. mrjade says:

    This is not an article to end till the other decision from the court or the parlament till the sun film users get relief.Think once how the Diana met and accident ? Just by being hunted by the press reporters when they saw her in the car.This SC order is no way reasonable and is a great threat to the woman privacy and security.Infact many people do not want to get disturbed by the gustures or being peeped out by others. Drunkards even may follow you when they need the money.

    what about the photophobiac people then ? They fear of light than what they had been exposed to till now. More light than what they are accustomed would result in sick to them.

    What about the people who disagree with others interfering whith their private postures ? For example a Natrum sulph patient homeopathically does not want to be looked at while he is doing something else. Others gestures at you would definately effect your whole scenario of thought process.

    A review and cancellation of the order is blindly an essentiality to reduce more crimes.
    Banning black films would result in enormous increase in the rate of crimes of congnizable and uncongnizable than than what is explained in the verdict.

    we are supposed to respect the individual liberty , safety and security specially the woman .

  19. C G KRISHNA says:

    First , let the police be ordered by Hon’able Supreme court to procure required Light meters to check 7o% and 50% VLT on glasses of cars, as manufactures charge heavily for making Tinted glasses, then impose the correcting measures.
    No doubt less than 70% and 50% VLT is not good for car /vehicle driving,as restricting of vision fully is a clear offence.
    We are in a technically developing country, ,mere following and passing/judging of Law made by non-scientific/technical persons is to be put in parliament.The word “to be maintained” is not manufacturing, but to maintain the conditions of 70/50, it is a technical background nature of thinking , giving unneccesray leverage to Judiciary/police/Law makers for creating lots/tons of unrest for Women,law abiders ,

  20. Hash Moody says:

    I totally agree. Yesterday, I was getting back home from somewhere & suddenly by a group of CRIMINALS IN UNIFORM (so called the Police).

    My car had a tinted sun-ban film of around 50% transparency, worth Rs. 10,000. After a 15 minutes of argument with the TI, I anyhow managed to get home by assuring them, that I’ll get it removed at home. The fine they were making were 440/-.

    I didn’t paid that too. :P

    I don’t know how they left me like that, but I guess it was because I had a big luxury car ? Maybe ? There were around 6-7 more vehicle owners, removing their films. I reached home & in morning, I sadly got the film removed.

    I don’t think there’s any end to stupid laws, until the govt. is in the hands of idiots!

    Fheww. Feeling better after sharing. For the first time.

    Thanks & Cheers.
    Hash

  21. kumar says:

    I do agree with all previous posts. Additionally I woulld like to mention that this sunfilm ban is not meant for all. Those who can afford to buy High end foreign brand car like BMW can go ahead with the dark black sunfilm. In SC decision, our respected judges gave reasons that dark sunfilm causes accidents due to poor visibilty. Wow what a brainstorming idea it was, so dear judges this high end luxury car will have clear visibilty despite having dark sunfilm, because it is fitted by car manufacturer’s? No wonder why law is blind. Another thing I have noticed that police are also seletive when matters come to fine for sunfilm. If you are having some links with police person or high political relation then easily you can make fun of SC desions which is meant for only common people.

  22. Sakshar Sur says:

    The judgement is a matter of concern, all films are not black, visibility can be easily measured if one wishes to. Tinted films reduce heat inside the cars, reducing AC and fuel usage. Groups of policemen spend their time collecting fines for such issues, instead of being fruitfully employed in ensuring people drive with discipline. I paid Rs. 200/-. The policeman did not explain what the second hundred was for. The police were pulling black films off cars & littering the road side! Police vehicles still have films on their windows. Dear judge, there is something wrong here, please help.

  23. Ash Geo says:

    Dear readers,
    In a country like ours, people are literally pouring into the cars on the streets. I have travelled wide & far, many Countries do not permit sun film on their cars but then anyone involved in eve teasing, etc can be arrested or even penalised severely. Developed Countries – people are too preoccupied to stare anywhere but into their GPS or the traffic cops.
    Developing Countries – many nations, the women population is quite high unlike in India where every other girl is chopped and dropped into wells and gutters. This shortage obviously has made the ‘other sex’ as an object of curiosity and high value.
    And i do not think we should be comparing with Under developed nations.

    Perhaps the SC is worried about the wrong issues & is losing focus on related burning issues. The train is not on fire revered judges, the track is. Till the issue is fixed perhaps the SC SHOULD permit rear windows tinting atleast. Am sure the judges will start feeling the heat when they pluck their bindees of the forehead of their vehicles.

  24. Venkat says:

    Totally agree! The incidences of people peeping into cars and passing on comments have increased. Though am a guy, what I do is of immense curiosity to people outside the car. Our privacy inside car has been demolished by this SC ruling.
    By the way, it seems the law already existed… it has only been implemented strongly now..

  25. Y. Agarawal says:

    Shocked – what a stupid ruling from our judges!

  26. Rohini says:

    Very nice article. Thank you for writing.

  27. Aman says:

    I completely agree with you on this. As if a slap on the face of SC, on the day the ruling was implemented a woman was raped inside a Scorpio (whose sun film had been removed) in the basement parking lot of a Mall in Ghaziabad with security all around. There has been no let up in crime against women since the sun films have been removed. All that has increased is misery: man to woman and the bloody weather, even ACs work less effectively and cars guzzle more fuel. Seems amidst all the corruption and flouting of rules in this nation, the only rule implemented since my birth is this scorching one, literally!

  28. Lord Akoroth says:

    By this logic the safest and the most law-abiding citizens are those who drive around in cars made completely out of transparent plastic…completely naked of course.

    As a most innocent citizen of this great nation, I humbly petition the Supreme Court to pass the order making the above compulsory.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

* Copy or type the randomly-generated password from the box above into the box below *

HTML tags and attributes are not allowed.

What is 7 + 11 ?
Please leave these two fields as-is:
IMPORTANT! To be able to proceed, you need to solve the following simple math (so we know that you are a human) :-)