The Legal Impasse of Vehicle Tints in India
Updated: October 15, 2025
Understanding the rules for car window films is difficult. The law is a mix of old rules, a major court ban, and new conflicts. This guide explains the exact legal situation for car owners in India.
Quick Legal Summary
For most car owners, the answer is simple: All aftermarket sun films are illegal.
- The Rule: A rule (CMVR 100(2)) says windshields must pass at least 70% of light (VLT) and side windows must pass at least 50% of light.
- The Ruling: A 2012 Supreme Court case Avishek Goenka v. Union of India banned all aftermarket (post-purchase) “black films… or any other material” from being pasted on car windows. This was done for public safety.
The Conflict: The Supreme Court’s ban overrides the VLT rule for car owners. The 70/50 rule now applies only to the glass manufacturers, not to films you add later.
The Two Parts of the Tint Law
1. The Statutory Rule (CMVR 100(2))
The Central Motor Vehicles Rules (CMVR), 1989, contain the base regulation. Rule 100(2) states the VLT (Visual Light Transmission) limits for vehicle glass. This is the source of the “70/50” figures many people know.
Visual Light Transmission (VLT) Rules
2. The Supreme Court Ruling (Avishek Goenka, 2012)
This court case changed everything. A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) argued that dark-tinted windows were helping criminals and endangering the public. The Supreme Court agreed.
The court’s order banned the use of “black films of any VLT… or any other material” on vehicle glass. The court clarified that the 70/50 VLT rule in the CMVR is for manufacturers, not for car owners to add films later.
Key Takeaway: The court’s order means that even if a film claims to be “70% VLT compliant,” it is still illegal to paste it on your car. The act of adding *any* film is what the court banned.
A Legal Conflict: The 2024 Kerala High Court Judgment
What Happened?
In September 2024, the Kerala High Court gave a judgment M/s. George & Sons v. Union of India that seemed to legalize VLT-compliant sun films within Kerala. The court’s reasoning was based on a new technical standard (IS 2553:2019) for “safety glazing”.
The New Standard (IS 2553:2019): This standard, published by the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), specifies requirements for car safety glass. The court noted that this standard includes “plastic glazing” and allows for glass to be combined with plastic layers (like films) to achieve safety. The court interpreted this to mean that if a film, when combined with glass, meets the 70/50 VLT rule, it could be permissible.
Nationwide Confusion vs. Legal Precedent
This judgment creates a direct conflict. The Supreme Court’s 2012 order is the law for the entire country (under Article 141) and it has not been overturned. The Kerala HC’s order is based on a new interpretation of a technical standard, but it does not (and cannot) overrule the Supreme Court’s ban.
Current Status (October 2025): The legal situation is unstable. While the Kerala HC order provides a defense *within its jurisdiction*, the Supreme Court’s 2012 ban remains the dominant law. Relying on the Kerala HC judgment is legally risky anywhere else in India.
Legal Implications for Car Owners
Ignoring the ban has direct consequences. The 2019 amendments to the Motor Vehicles Act increased penalties significantly.
A. Fines and Penalties (Post-2019)
The old ₹100 fine is gone. The 2019 Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act introduced much higher penalties. Fines can vary based on which section the officer uses.
Comparing Potential Fines
Police also have the power, given by the Supreme Court, to remove the illegal film on the spot. This is not an overreach of authority; it is a direct order from the court.
B. Vehicle Impoundment and Other Issues
In cases of repeated offenses or refusal to comply, police may impound the vehicle. Furthermore, having illegal tints can create complications during insurance claims, as it may be cited as an illegal modification to the vehicle.
Factory-Installed Tints: Why They Are Legal
Many new cars come with “privacy glass” or “tinted glass” from the factory. This is legal. The difference is in the manufacturing process.
- It is not a film. The tint is part of the glass itself; the glass (glazing) is dyed during its creation.
- It is certified. This factory-made glass is tested and certified to meet the 70/50 VLT rules *before* the car is sold.
- It meets CMVR 100(2). This is what the 70/50 rule was designed for: to regulate the glass supplied by manufacturers like Saint-Gobain, Asahi, or Pilkington.
The Supreme Court’s ban was on *aftermarket materials* (films) applied *after* purchase. It did not ban the certified, tinted glass that manufacturers install.
Are There Any Exceptions for Sun Films?
For 99.9% of the population, there are no exceptions. However, a common question involves security and medical needs.
1. Security / VIP Protection
The Supreme Court’s 2012 order does allow for a very narrow exception. The court stated that the Home Ministry (for central VIPs) or state-level Home Departments/Police Commissioners (for state VIPs) could grant special permission.
This is typically only for individuals with Z or Z+ category security, where darker tints are deemed necessary for protection. This is not an option available to the general public.
2. Medical Conditions (e.g., UV Sensitivity)
This is a difficult area. The 2012 court order made no specific exceptions for medical conditions. While some individuals have attempted to get exemptions by petitioning RTOs or courts with medical certificates, there is no established, uniform legal process for this.
For practical purposes: Do not assume you can get a medical exception. As the law stands, a police officer on the road will enforce the Supreme Court’s blanket ban and will not be able to verify a medical certificate.
How Do Police Enforce the Ban?
Enforcement happens during regular traffic stops. Police have two main methods:
1. Visual Inspection
This is the most common method. Since *all* aftermarket films are banned, any visible film (bubbles, edges near the window bead) is grounds for a fine. The officer does not need to measure the VLT.
2. VLT Meters (Lux Meters)
Some traffic police departments, especially in major cities like Delhi, Mumbai, and Bengaluru, are equipped with VLT meters. These devices measure the amount of light passing through the glass.
- They are used to confirm that factory-installed glass meets the 70/50 standard.
- They can also be used to prove that a film is installed, as even a “clear” film will block some percentage of light.
3. On-the-Spot Removal
The Supreme Court’s order empowered police to remove the offending film immediately. This is a common part of the penalty. You will be fined *and* your film will be peeled off, often by the police or by you under their supervision.
Legal Alternatives for Heat and UV Protection
Given the ban, car owners need other ways to manage India’s harsh sun. Here are some legal alternatives:
1. Removable Window Shades / Curtains
These are the most common and legal solution. They can be mesh, fabric, or roller-style. The key is that they are not *pasted* on the glass and are removable. Some states have specific rules against using them *while driving*, so check local regulations. They are generally considered legal when the vehicle is parked.
2. Clear, Certified UV Films (A Grey Area)
Some companies sell expensive, high-quality “clear” films that block UV rays and heat (infrared) without visibly tinting the glass. These are in a legal grey area.
The Argument For: They are not “black films” and do not obstruct vision.
The Argument Against: The SC banned “any other material.” A clear film is still a material pasted on the glass.
Verdict: Risky. A police officer may not be able to tell the difference and may still fine you based on the “any material” ban.
3. High-Performance Factory Glass
When purchasing a new car, you can specifically choose a variant that comes with factory-installed UV-cut or “solar” glass. This is 100% legal and effective.
State-wise Penalty Table (Guideline)
Fines are based on the M.V. Act (a central law) but states can “compound” or adjust the final amount. The table below is a guideline for first-time offenses under Section 192 (or similar). Penalties for repeat offenses are much higher.
| State / UT | Estimated Fine (First Offense) | Governing Section (Likely) |
|---|
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
No. The Supreme Court’s 2012 order banned the *use* of “black films… or any other material” on the glass. The ban is on the act of pasting a film, not just its VLT value. The 70/50 rule only applies to the original glass manufacturer.
The Kerala HC judgment (Sept 2024) has created confusion. It interpreted a new BIS standard to permit VLT-compliant films. However, this order is in direct conflict with the 2012 Supreme Court’s nationwide ban. Until the Supreme Court revisits the issue, its original 2012 order remains the law for the entire country (Article 141).
Still illegal. The ban applies to all windows (front, rear, and side). The side windows (50% VLT) and rear window (70% VLT) are both covered by the CMVR rule and the subsequent Supreme Court ban on aftermarket films.
Yes. The Supreme Court explicitly authorized the police to remove illegal films at the owner’s expense. This is a common part of the penalty, in addition to the monetary fine.
These films are marketed to block heat (IR) and UV rays without visibly tinting the glass. They are in a legal “grey area.” The Supreme Court banned “black films… or any other material.” A police officer could interpret this to include clear films. While they don’t obstruct vision, they are still a material pasted to the glass, making them technically illegal under the 2012 order. It is a risk.
Templates for Legal Communication
These templates are for informational purposes. Always consult a legal professional before sending any official communication.
Template 1: Contesting a Challan (Based on Kerala HC Order)
Note: Use only if challan was issued in Kerala *after* Sept 2024. This is high-risk.
To,
The [Traffic Police Department / Adjudicating Officer],
[City, State]
Subject: Representation to contest challan no. [Challan Number] dated [Date]
Respected Sir/Madam,
I, [Your Name], owner of vehicle [Vehicle No.], received the above challan for the use of “sun films.” I contest this challan on the grounds that the film installed on my vehicle is VLT-compliant and permissible under the Bureau ofIndian Standards (BIS) standard IS 2553:2019 (Part 1).
As established in the Hon’ble Kerala High Court judgment M/s. George & Sons v. Union of India (WP(C) No. 12984 of 2024), the use of safety glazing materials that comply with IS 2553 and meet the VLT requirements of CMVR 100(2) is not prohibited. The film on my vehicle is [Provide VLT % if known] and is intended for safety and UV protection, not just tinting.
I request you to kindly review and cancel this challan in light of the aforementioned legal position.
Thank you,
[Your Name]
[Contact Number]
IX. Concluding Analysis and Comprehensive Legal Advisory
This exhaustive analysis of the statutory rules, binding judicial precedents, and enforcement policies yields a clear and unambiguous legal advisory for all vehicle owners in India.
Summary of the Law:
The law is definitive. The 70% VLT (front/rear) and 50% VLT (side) standards specified in CMVR Rule 100 apply exclusively to vehicle manufacturers at the point of production. The 2012 Supreme Court judgment in Avishek Goenka v. Union of India creates an absolute, binding, and pan-India prohibition on the application of all aftermarket sun control films and materials, including clear UV films and removable curtains, on grounds of public safety.
Legal vs. Illegal:
- Legal: Factory (OEM) tinted glass that is certified by the manufacturer as compliant with IS 2553 and meets the 70%/50% VLT limits.
- Illegal: Any film, tint, shade, or curtain applied to any window after the vehicle’s purchase.
The Real Risks (Legal Implications):
The penalties for non-compliance exist on a spectrum of severity.
- Low Risk: A fine under MVA Section 177, which is now ₹500 (first offense) or ₹1,500 (subsequent offense).
- Medium Risk: A significantly larger fine under MVA Section 182A(4) for illegal alteration (₹5,000), combined with the inconvenience and expense of having the film forcibly removed on the roadside by police.
- Catastrophic Risk: The forfeiture of a motor insurance claim. An insurer has a strong legal standing to reject a claim for damage or theft by arguing the illegal film constituted a breach of the policy contract and/or contributed to the accident. This risk alone renders any perceived benefit of sun film negligible.
On the 2024 Kerala High Court Judgment:
This is a localized, technical ruling that is not the law of India. It is jurisdictionally confined to Kerala and remains on legally unstable ground. Relying on it for travel outside Kerala is legally perilous.
Final Advisory:
Given the binding Supreme Court precedent and, most critically, the catastrophic financial risk of insurance claim repudiation, this report must advise all vehicle owners in India (barring those with official Z+ security exemptions) to strictly avoid the installation of any aftermarket sun control films, tints, or materials on their vehicles.
