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:
- Routine verification should be performed by competent, accountable, and appropriately authorised manufacturer/ third-party verification bodies.
- 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.
