This is a common subject related to public interest in Legal Metrology sector. Our comments as under have been forwarded via email on 18th September 2025, to Director with copy to Secretary and Joint Secretary Department of consumer affairs GOI and also uploaded on our website https://www.wema.co.in under information section, to facilitate access.
Subject matter is a Proposed draft released for public comments by Department of Consumer Affairs. It recommends fixed validity period for model Approvals on the grounds (a) To replace obsolete models, not adequate to serve current requirements (b) reassessment to ensure models maintain accuracy and reliability to bolster consumer trust and market integrity (c) to promote innovation and provide time line to manufacturers to enhance design, long term durability and resistance to tampering or inaccuracies.
At the outset we are absolutely pleased to note the consumer centric intent of Department of consumer affairs, for which weighing industry has been following up for many, many years with the concerned regulatory authorities and other related government agencies, as per material on record.
There is no hesitancy in stating that the chosen focus area is misplaced. What actually requires earnest and meaningful upgrade is Legal Metrology (General Rules) 2011, which is more aligned to mechanical era, partially to OIML (International organisation of Legal Metrology) recommendations and BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards) finds hardly any mention. Said General Rules are partly replicated from OIML recommendation R 76 1992 which is now obsolete and remains since replaced with new version OIML R76 2006. Also, the component of OIML recommendation R60 is completely missing in it. What is intended to be achieved through draft amendment is very much achievable through more effective and determined implementation of prevalent Model Rules like — Rule 7(1) – that covers Tests for Approval of Model, for sustained accuracy and reliability and by invoking Rule 13— for revocation of certificate of approval of obsolete models and the ones not up to mark to cater to present day needs. This can pave the way for new improved and latest versions of models and thus take care of obsolescence issue. Religious adherence to testing parameters as per existing Rule will achieve the rest as proposed in draft amendment. Furthermore, the importance of process of thorough honest inspection and verification need to be drilled in to the concerned. Enhancing accountability and addressing shortcomings of traceability, non-uniformity due to multiple interpretation of rules and stretched resources will deliver desired results more than a patchy short-term arrangement. It is also worth noting that Rule 3 and Rule 4 of Model Rules provide for recognition of every laboratory desirous of obtaining such recognition for taking up the job of testing and recommending the models for approval to government. It also stipulates that List of such recognized laboratories be notified from time to time. Format of the application for applying remains notified by MOCA F&PD on 19th March 2014 vide notification ref S.O.824(E). How many laboratories remain notified till date? It is nil as per RTI information. We only know of government owned five RRSLS notified till date.
Further details of the facts in support of afore said contention are stated below: –
- As per Rule 20 of Model Rules and section 22 of Legal Metrology Act, Approval of Model precedes grant of licence to manufacture.
- No weight and measure can be manufactured in deviation to standards as specified by or under the Act. Act means Legal Metrology Act 2009 and under the Act means Legal Metrology Rules 2011. In case of deviation penal provision under section 27 of the Act gets invoked.
- Grant of Model Approval and subsequent manufacture of weights and measures is supposed to be strictly as prescribed in 7th schedule of General Rules 2011. Parameters prescribed cover construction of an instrument, metrological characteristics, metrological properties, indications, errors, accuracy class, verification scale intervals, minimum capacity etc. Besides, test procedures are specified during verification and inspection with respect to evaluation of error, weighing test – linearity, hysteresis, temperature, influence factors, weighing test during substitution method, discrimination test, eccentricity test etc.
- Any change or upgradation in standards for betterment has to begin with incorporation of the same in General Rules. Once reflected in General Rules, it will automatically percolate down and result in revocation of obsolete models and grant of new model approvals for subsequent manufacturing as and when warranted.
- With no change in General Rules, fixed tenure of model approvals will only tantamount renewal of existing approvals which is akin to renewal of licenses at fixed intervals. Probable 0utcome may be, no gain at a considerable cost and time besides encouraging unease of doing business.
- As per Rules manufacturing licence cannot be renewed in absence of Model Approval. This means, blanket approval of Models after a fixed periodicity will also result in suspension of manufacturing activities, irrespective of grace period or not, till the time approval is sought/ repeated
- For the last few years DOCA has been aggressively advocating for circular economy to ensure extended functional life of products. Accordingly, Right to Repair portal was launched. Approval of Models at fixed periodicity runs against this concept.
- It also runs against the concept of BRAP (Business Reforms Action Plan) of the Government. BRAP 2024, sector specific implementation guide for central ministries/ departments/states/ includes Legal Metrology under Area 18.
