Director General WEMA

July 15, 2026

This article seeks to examine the subject further in continuation of my earlier articles, “Myths about Annual Verification and Stamping of Weighing Equipment” (23 November 2023) and “Rationale for Risk Classification of Measuring Instruments” (5 June 2026).

The objective of the legal metrology system is to ensure continuous measurement integrity—not merely annual compliance.

Measurement accuracy is not an annual event; it is a continuous obligation. Verification confirms compliance only at a particular point in time. Sustained accuracy throughout the year depends upon proper installation, regular maintenance, responsible ownership, protection against tampering and effective regulatory oversight.

The traditional regulatory model assumes that the regulator’s primary responsibility is to carry out verification. The whole process is physical.  However, where human resources are insufficient to verify the entire instrument population within the prescribed verification cycle, the system risks becoming compliance-oriented on paper rather than effective in practice. A verification certificate merely certifies that an instrument complied with the prescribed requirements at the time of verification. It cannot assure that the instrument will remain accurate throughout the remainder of its service life until the next verification. That assurance can only be achieved through responsible ownership, sound maintenance practices, and an effective system of regulatory surveillance.

The remedy lies in transitioning from verification-centric regulation to outcome-centric regulation. From a logical, practical, and technical perspective, the Government’s objective should not be to perform every verification itself, but to ensure that measurements used in commerce, trade, and protection remain accurate, trustworthy, and continuously compliant. Verification is one of the means of achieving that objective- it is not the objective itself.

Government can fulfil this role by focusing on policy, oversight, surveillance, and enforcement, while routine technical conformity assessment may be entrusted to competent and approved bodies operating under strict regulatory control. Such an approach shifts the emphasis to where it rightly belongs—preserving confidence in the national measurement system rather than on who physically applies the verification stamp.

A risk-based categorisation of measuring instruments can become an effective regulatory tool, provided the classification is objective, evidence-based, and proportionate to the actual level of risk.

A comprehensive risk assessment may appropriately consider:

• value of goods traded;
• number of transactions;
• consequences of incorrect measurement;
• impact on health and safety;
• potential for fraud;
• installed instrument population;
• accuracy classification; and
• historical non-compliance.

Similarly, a policy of such significance should ideally be supported by reliable data on:

• market statistics;
• instrument population;
• verification workload;
• failure rates;
• compliance history; and
• availability of inspection resources.

Without such evidence, it becomes difficult to demonstrate that any categorisation is proportionate to the actual regulatory risk.

Commercial transactions involve measurements that determine the amount payable for goods or services. Protection, on the other hand, concerns measurements that influence decisions affecting the health, safety, or welfare of human beings, animals, or the environment. This distinction is well recognised in legal metrology and provides a sound foundation for risk-based regulation.

The proposed regulatory model redefines the regulator’s role—from being the primary verifier to becoming the guardian of measurement integrity. It makes the legal framework more outcome-oriented without compromising regulatory authority.

Under this model, the regulator’s foremost responsibility is not to verify every weighing instrument, but to ensure that every instrument used in regulated applications remains accurate, reliable, and trustworthy throughout its operational life. Routine verification, being a technical conformity assessment, may be entrusted to competent and accountable manufacturers/ third-party verifiers operating under statutory approval and regulatory supervision. Oversight, surveillance, enforcement, and prosecution, however, must remain the exclusive responsibility of the Government.

 Accordingly:

1. Routine verification should be performed by competent, accountable, and appropriately authorised manufacturer/ third-party verification bodies.
2. Government resources should be redirected towards sovereign regulatory functions, including: unannounced surveillance inspections; audits of third-party verification bodies; investigation of complaints; market surveillance; prosecution of violations; and continuous monitoring of the overall health and integrity of the national measurement system.
   

Rather than presuming an inherent conflict of interest in third-party verification, the more relevant policy question is whether such conflicts if any, can be effectively managed through a robust framework of approvals, regulatory oversight, surveillance, audits, and enforcement as is being done successfully at international level. If they can, the focus rightly shifts from who performs the verification to how the integrity of the entire measurement system is assured.

In this Era of Viksit Bharat, the time is ripe to shift from activity-based regulation to outcome-based regulation.

The post Regulator as the Guardian of Measurement Accuracy appeared first on WEMA.

The Indian Legal Metrology framework appears to impose one of the most stringent test-weight requirements globally for verification of high-capacity weighing instruments under the substitution method.

In practice, the prevailing interpretation requires certified test weights equal to 50% of the maximum capacity of the weighing instrument. For large weighbridges and other high-capacity instruments, the cost of procuring and maintaining such test weights can exceed the cost of the instrument itself, often by a factor of three or more. This creates a significant economic and operational burden without a corresponding enhancement in measurement assurance.

Internationally, certified test weights are used primarily to establish a reference load for substitution testing because constructing full-capacity test loads entirely from certified weights is neither economically practical nor operationally feasible. The relevant OIML recommendations do not prescribe an unconditional requirement of certified test weights equal to 50% of the instrument’s maximum capacity.

A proper reading of the OIML provisions indicates that the 50% criterion relates to the repeatability test load, which may consist of a combination of certified test weights and substituted load. Furthermore, OIML recommendations expressly provide for justified reductions in the quantity of certified test weights required, depending on the repeatability performance of the instrument. For example, where repeatability errors are within 0.3e or 0.2e, the required certified test weights may be reduced to approximately one-third or one-fifth of the maximum capacity respectively.

Despite the absence of any explicit requirement in State enforcement rules mandating 50% certified test weights, enforcement authorities routinely insist upon this condition by referring to the Legal Metrology (General) Rules, 2011. All stakeholders are aware that compliance with such an interpretation is often impractical and commercially unviable. This situation creates uncertainty in enforcement and has the potential for arbitrary application.

The industry has repeatedly sought clarification, rationalization, and harmonization of the requirement with internationally accepted principles. However, despite representations made over the past decade to the concerned Ministry of the central Government, the issue remains unresolved. We have once again forwarded our representation requesting the competent authority:

1. To clarify the intended interpretation of the substitution testing provisions under the Legal Metrology (General) Rules, 2011.
2. Align national practice with the global practice and OIML recommendations governing substitution testing
3. Issue uniform guidance to State enforcement authorities to ensure consistency, transparency, and practicality in verification procedures.
   

 Such clarification would maintain measurement integrity while eliminating unnecessary costs, operational difficulties, and scope for inconsistent enforcement.

 A Global comparative of standards related to test weights required for testing in different developed countries, besides OIML recommendations in this regard, appears quite insightful:

Vijay Bhat

The post Indian Legal Metrology General Rules 2011: The Case for Global Alignment appeared first on WEMA.

The post Frequently Asked Questions – Legal Metrology India appeared first on WEMA.

The post E Maap- A step forward towards Modernising legal Metrology In India appeared first on WEMA.

The post Our Comments related to DOCA Ref: I-9/6/2025-W&M Dated 09-09-2025 Notice for inviting Public Comments on the proposed Draft Amendment in the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models) Rules, 2011 appeared first on WEMA.

The post World Metrology Day appeared first on WEMA.

Before embarking on solving a problem, it is important to remind ourselves that change is a natural and universal process. It offers no exemptions, not even to those holding high positions, titles, expertise, experience, knowledge, reputation or affluence. Great influencers tend to reach redundancy and become ineffective, if the pace is not maintained with the changing times.

On a lighter note, there exists a category of people who intentionally create problems to take credit for solving them later. Underlying motive being, to remain in the lime light !!

Facing  problem is a challenge which can be dealt with a systematic approach :-

Root cause Analysis : Inputs for such analysis can be generated through information gathering , research-based data collection, personal discussions involving active listening , appropriately responding to what is being conveyed, with restrained emotions and avoiding judgements.

Data Analysis    : While evaluating and analysing the information, it is important to have proper knowledge about the problem and related governing factors. Knowing more about the subject and  prevailing circumstances may lead to better analysis.

Identifying the Problem : Proper diagnosis is the key to effective treatment and central to any devised solution.

Decision Making : Time bound fact- based consultative decision making devoid of opinions and assumptions enhances the efficacy.

Devising and implementing solution : For a workable and lasting solution, it needs to be free from subjective perspective, transparent , implementable, achievable and  measurable

Sustenance : For sustaining the results of implemented solution and to maintain relevance of action plans, it helps to have periodic review process in place.

This reminds me of some famous quotes on the subject :

“The greatest glory in living lies not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall.” – Nelson Mandela

“Success is not final, failure is not fatal:  It is the courage to continue that counts.” – Winston Churchill

“It always seems impossible until it’s done.”  – Nelson Mandela

Vijay Bhat  

The post Problems are meant to be solved  appeared first on WEMA.

The post NATIONAL CONSUMER DAY 2024 appeared first on WEMA.

Data is a valuable asset that guides citizens , governments, researchers ,innovators ,businesses and others to make informed decisions, improve lives, formulate effective and implementable regulations, improve processes, strategize action plans to meet goals, access resources optimally, evaluate performance, fix bench marks and so on.

Flow of information/data is not so easy, particularly when it is related to government agencies. It is a general experience that in spite of repeated requests and reminders, in majority of cases ,no responses come forth from them. Status quo is maintained and defended. Perhaps fixed salaries, promotions based on seniority and no performance linked incentives are partly responsible for ensuring minimal activity at the same cost. Decision making mechanism is slow because the process is unwieldy long. Resultant effect is increased litigation and increase in pendency of cases in courts, which further overburdens the litigants economically and reduces productivity. Government, by and large is the biggest litigant in India, may be because costs are borne by tax payers and there is no impact on individual pockets. Psychologically, this litigation process may also lead to hesitancy to respond to even genuine requests.

Appreciating the situation, Government enacted Right to information ACT 2005 under article 19 (1) of the Indian constitution, at the behest of supreme court ruling to this effect. To ensure flow of information smoothly to Citizens, provision of penalty was also included under section 20 (1)of the Act, imposable on Public Information officers, in the event of :-

• Refusal to receive an application
• Not having furnished the requested information within 30 days of receiving the application
• Malafidely denied the request for information
• Knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information
• Destroyed information which was the subject of the request
• Obstructed in any manner, in furnishing the information

The amount of penalty is Rs. 250.00 per day, till the information is furnished, subject to a maximum of Rs. 25,000.00. The penalty has to be paid by the Public information officer from his salary and not by the Public Authority. The Central information commission or the State information commission gives PIO a reasonable opportunity to be heard before the penalty is imposed. However, the burden of proving that he/she acted reasonably shall be on the PIO. Under Section 20(2) of the RTI Act, the CIC or the SIC can also recommend disciplinary action as per the service rules applicable to the PIO.

 All constitutional authorities, agencies, owned and controlled by government and those substantially financed by the government come under the purview of the Act. The Act also mandates public authorities of union government or state governments, to provide timely response to the citizens’ request for information. The citizens can seek any information from the government authorities that the government can disclose to the parliament. Some information that can affect the sovereignty and the integrity of the country is exempted from the purview of RTI. Information relating to internal security, relations with foreign countries, intellectual property rights, cabinet discussions are also exempted from RTI.

Some Salient points :

   Eligibility under RTI Act : Any Indian citizen without any minimum and maximum age limit can    submit request for information.

Information under RTI ACT means :  Records, Documents, Memos, E mails, Opinions, Advices, press releases, Circulars, Orders, Logbooks, contracts, Reports, Papers, Samples, Models ,Data material held in any electronic form and Information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force

Record under RTI ACT means : Any document, manuscript and file, any microfilm, microfiche and facsimile copy of a document, any reproduction of image or images embodied in such microfilm (whether enlarged or not) and any other material produced by a computer or any other device

Public authority ( PA ) means :  Any institution, body, or authority that Is established by the Constitution, established by any law made by the Parliament or State Legislature, established by a notification or order issued by the Central Government or State Government

Public Information Officer ( PIO ) means :  A government official responsible for receiving and managing requests for information. PIOS are responsible for providing information to RTI applicants and are designated by Public Authorities.

Time Line for Reply : 30 days from the date of receipt of receipt of application by PIO

Filing of RTI application :  It can be done on line for central govt related matters on RTI portal  https://rtionline.gov.in. Given format of application is to be filled up. Name of Public authority is to be filled up from the dropdown menu followed by personal information and the description of information sought in 500 characters or supporting document can be attached to describe it. Fee of Rs 10 is to be paid on line. For people below poverty line nothing is to be paid. Application goes to Nodal officer, and RTI request registration number is generated for future reference and status tracking. Nodal officer forwards it to the concerned PIO for action within few hours. Where an application is made to a public authority requesting for information which is held by another public authority or the subject matter of which is more closely connected with the functions of another public authority, CPIOs have direction to not to return the requests to RTI cell. Instead they have to forward such applications directly to other related public authorities under their covering letter with a copy to the applicant, giving the details of concerned PIO. This exercise can be carried out on line, provided the other PIOs are aligned to the portal. If not , communications are sent through speed post to all concerned. Decision letter/ reply received from CPIO contains the name of first appellate authority to whom applicant can approach at no extra fee, for first appeal ,if needed, in the event of :-

• If Public Information Officer (PIO) has rejected the application to supply the sought information. First appeal has to be filed within 30 days from date of receipt of decision of CPIO by the applicant with First Appellate Authority (FAA).
• If the applicant is not satisfied with the reply received and believes that the information provided is doubtful or not factual provision of first appeal can be invoked
• If Public Authority is unable to supply information within time limit of 30 days. If no reply is received within 30 days (35 days if application is lodged with ACPIO) from the date of receipt by CPIO (ACPIO), then first appeal has to be filed within 30 days from the date when reply was due from CPIO.

Likewise, there is a provision for 2^nd appeal also as provided in the RTI regulations

Many States now have RTI portals that can be accessed for state specific information. But for national level information it makes sense to go through CPIOS. It is a common knowledge that State enforcement Rules are made and amended based on Central (General Rules) and its amendments from time to time. Central (General Rules), obviously cannot be made or bettered without updated consolidated national data based on periodical inputs from States.

Off line RTI Application : In case of public authorities not aligned to the central portal, applicants can resort to off line mode. Procedure to be adopted remains the same as in case of on-line mode. Only communications and documents are sent through speed post from either side. RTI request registration number is not communicated to the Applicant and tracking becomes difficult. To save the hassle of procuring postal order for fee amount from the post office, one can register on https://www.epostoffice.gov.in  and obtain E- Postal order instantly. Print out of the same can be sent along with RTI application.

There is no doubt that our nation is very much on the path of development. There has been substantial improvement on SDG (Sustainable Development Goals). SDG is principal tool for measuring national and subnational progress. Significant improvement has been made in goals on eliminating poverty, economic growth, providing decent work, climate action and life on land. As per data released by Niti Aayog in July 2024,score is growing year after year. In 2018-19 it was 57, 2019-20 went up to 60, further up in 2020-21 to 66 and now in 2023-24 it is 71. Constitutional amendment Act 2022 bill has already been introduced in Rajya Sabha on 26^th July 2024 to insert Article 21B in constitution, which deals with Right to (a) safe drinking water( b) Pollution free environment that is not harmful to one’s health or well being (c) protected environment for the benefit of present and future generations. 34 no. private member bills have been introduced in Lok Sabha on 9^th August 2024.To name a few – Compulsory military training to students , ban on conducting entrance examination for professional courses, Quality education (enhancing through Internship Act 2024), MSME Development (Amendment) Act 2024 on lending rate & limit of collateral free loans and incentives to increase the inflow of equity capital.

As a Nation we are on the path of progression. Let us respect it and keep complacency at bay.

Vijay Bhat

The post Right to information appeared first on WEMA.

The post Effective Skilling – An Unavoidable Need appeared first on WEMA.