With reforms happening at a pace not seen before, Legal Metrology in India is aptly marching on the path of Viksit Bharat. Measures being adopted towards simplifying Legal Metrology compliance, balancing ease of doing business with consumer protection, and risk-based proportionate enforcement testify to this philosophy.
Measurement accuracy, integrity and reliability are central to safeguarding consumer interests in trade transactions. The same holds true under the protection category concerning measurements that influence decisions affecting the health, safety or welfare of human beings, animals or the environment. Although regulatory control vests with the Government, ensuring measurement integrity is a shared responsibility of the regulator, manufacturers, service providers and owners. The degree of collaboration and accountability among all stakeholders will ultimately determine the effectiveness of the regulatory framework.
Enforcement of the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2026 demonstrates that regulation is progressively moving from punishment-oriented control towards proportionate compliance and accountability. Out of 57 sections, 25 have been amended. Imprisonment has largely been removed and replaced by graduated penalties for repeat offences, while imprisonment has been retained only for three offences, including Section 33 concerning the use of unverified instruments.
The introduction of Section 2(ea.), providing for an improvement notice for a first offence, is another progressive measure. Section 40, which provided for imprisonment of 2–5 years for obstructing government functioning, has been omitted, with such matters now dealt with separately under the BNSS, 2023. This demonstrates that accountability is not confined to the regulated community.
Section 52 provides for penalties against the regulator, including penalties increasing from ₹5,000 up to ₹5 lakh, together with suspension or revocation in appropriate cases. Section 53 provides similar powers in respect of State authorities, with penalties up to ₹1 lakh and suspension or revocation.
Licensing has been replaced by a registration framework with lifelong validity and no periodic renewal. Self-declaration has also replaced prior inspection in the applicable framework. Several States/UTs have already notified such reforms, including Puducherry, Delhi, Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan and Manipur, while draft rules are under consideration in six other States.
The reactivation of GATC after nearly 13 years is another important development. The 2013 Rules covered 10 products—six weighing and four other products. Nine additional non-weighing products have been brought under the General Rules during the last year. All of these remain incorporated in GATC Rules, taking the present coverage to 23 products—7 weighing and 16 non-weighing products.
The Central GATC renewal fee has also been substantially reduced from ₹2 lakh to ₹10,000. Manipur has issued its final GATC notification broadly aligned with the Central GATC framework, while Delhi, Andhra Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh have draft provisions under consideration.
Another welcome reform concerns imported products: where an identical product from the same overseas supplier already has an Indian model approval, duplication of testing can be avoided and the model can be endorsed.
These reforms demonstrate that ease of doing business and consumer protection need not be conflicting objectives. The real challenge is to ensure that simplification of compliance is accompanied by continued assurance of measurement accuracy, integrity and reliability.
While these reforms represent significant progress, the effectiveness of the emerging framework will ultimately depend on how certain fundamental aspects of Legal Metrology are addressed.
Factors that need special consideration in the ongoing reform process
- Measurement accuracy is not an annual event; it is a continuous obligation.
- Verification confirms compliance only at a particular point in time and is no assurance for consistent, sustained and continued accuracy.
- Proper installation, regular maintenance, responsible ownership, protection against tampering and effective regulatory oversight together determine the quality and continuity of measurement accuracy.
- Risk classification can be proportionate only if supported by reliable data on market size, instrument population, verification workload, failure rates, inspection resources, accuracy classification and compliance history.
- Digitalisation and uniformity are pivotal to effective governance in Legal Metrology.
- Digitalisation does not merely mean putting existing procedures online. It should create an integrated information system capable of supporting evidence-based regulation and uniform implementation across States and UTs.
- Traditional assumptions, presumptions and perceptions about the regulated community need to be re-examined to move from a trust-deficit regulatory environment towards a trust-based regulatory ecosystem.
- Transparency and fairness should remain integral to regulatory decision-making, with clarity of requirements, consistency in implementation and predictability in enforcement.
The way forward
The objective should not necessarily be more regulation, but better regulation —regulation that is proportionate to risk, supported by reliable data, enabled by digital integration, implemented uniformly and built on mutual accountability between the regulator and the regulated.
Ultimately, the success of Legal Metrology reform should not be measured merely by the number of procedures simplified, licences eliminated or inspections reduced. It should be measured by whether the regulatory system is able to deliver its fundamental objective: confidence in the accuracy, integrity and reliability of measurements.
