Director General WEMA

October 7, 2026

India’s Legal Metrology regulatory environment is undergoing significant reform.

Simplification of compliance, ease of doing business, risk-based and proportionate enforcement, digitalisation, uniformity and a more trust-based regulatory ecosystem are increasingly becoming important components of this reform process.

GATC can fit naturally into this philosophy.

A uniform GATC model, preferably substantially based on the improved Central GATC framework, could provide a practical way forward.

Such a model could retain effective regulatory control while permitting competent GATCs to contribute to verification capacity across the country within clearly defined safeguards.

The Legal Metrology Organisation would continue to:

• regulate and supervise GATCs;
• conduct audits and surveillance;
• undertake surprise inspections;
• monitor verification records;
• investigate complaints;
• take enforcement action; and
• remain responsible for protecting consumer interests.

GATCs, meanwhile, would provide the additional verification capacity which the existing regulatory manpower cannot realistically provide on its own.

The larger objective: Measurement Accuracy and Integrity

The debate should ultimately not be about Central GATC versus State GATC.

Nor should it be about intra-State versus inter-State sales.

Verification is a different regulatory event from sale

Therefore, making the commercial route by which the instrument reached the user decisive for GATC jurisdiction appears difficult to justify from a measurement-science perspective.

GST and Legal Metrology are different regulatory domains

GST determines the tax treatment of a supply, including whether it is intra-State or inter-State.

That classification serves a fiscal purpose.

Legal Metrology, on the other hand, is concerned with accuracy, conformity and public guarantee of measurements. The Department itself describes Legal Metrology’s objective as ensuring public guarantee from the standpoint of security and accuracy of weighments and measurements.

Caution needs to be exercised about importing an intra-State/inter-State sales classification from GST into the Legal Metrology verification framework unless there is an explicit statutory provision requiring it.

DOCA’s present position is based on territorial jurisdiction of the approved GATC, rather than on the place where the instrument was sold. It reflects a national character.

The intra-State/inter-State character of a sale is a GST concept and should not, in the absence of an express provision in the Legal Metrology Act or General Rules, be imported as a criterion for determining eligibility or jurisdiction for verification of a weighing or measuring instrument.

Verification relates to the instrument and its place of use, not to the transaction through which ownership of the instrument was transferred.

Creating a verification restriction, based indirectly on the GST character of the original sale, could actually fragment the verification infrastructure and reduce the very flexibility that GATCs are intended to provide.

However, there is considerable merit in having a uniform model encompassing all terms and conditions, reporting pattern, prescribed records, data fields and submission methodology, aligned with the Central GATC framework.

The real question is:

How can India ensure that the largest possible population of measuring instruments remains accurate and compliant throughout their period of use?

Periodic verification is only one component of measurement accuracy and integrity.  The real objective is continued confidence in measurements throughout the life of an instrument.

For this, India needs adequate verification capacity, competent service providers, responsible users, effective regulatory surveillance and a strong Legal Metrology Organisation capable of focusing its limited manpower on those functions where government intervention is indispensable.

Third-party verification, when properly regulated, can be an important part of that ecosystem. More regulations or burdensome terms won’t help. Instead, better regulations and less burdensome will attract better quality aspirants to make it successful.

A national opportunity

The Central GATC framework has taken more than a decade to evolve from a largely dormant mechanism into one that is now beginning to gain practical acceptance.

With around 52 Central GATCs already operational, there is now an opportunity to learn from this experience rather than create substantially different systems.

The objective should be to develop a third-party network large enough to make a meaningful difference to India’s enormous measuring-instrument population.

A uniform national approach would not mean that States surrender their regulatory responsibilities.

It would mean that Central and State authorities work within a common regulatory philosophy, common GATC architecture and common standards of competence, while retaining their respective reporting and supervisory responsibilities.

Most importantly, it would avoid allowing jurisdictional distinctions to come in the way of expanding the country’s verification capacity.

The ultimate objective is neither Centralisation nor decentralisation.

It is measurement integrity and continuous accuracy.

And measurement integrity should serve two purposes equally:

Fairness in transactions and protection to safeguard the wellbeing of human, animal, commodity or vegetation collectively.

India now has an opportunity to make GATC an important component of that objective.

The question is not who should perform the verification.

The question is whether the measuring instrument is being verified competently, the record is traceable, the regulator is able to exercise effective oversight, and society can continue to trust the measurement.

That should be the real measure of success of GATC.

The post Towards a uniform national Government Approved Test Centre framework appeared first on WEMA.

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.

Vijay Bhat

The post Transforming the Legal Metrology Landscape in India appeared first on WEMA.

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.