The introduction of Unique Alphanumeric ID for hallmarking gold articles is valid and serves consumer protection without infringing upon the trade rights of the merchants.

JUDGMENT

Since common issues are raised in both these writ petitions, they are heard and disposed of by this common judgment. W.P (C) No.16839 of 2021 is treated as the leading case and the facts in the said writ petition will be adverted to in this judgment.

2. Petitioner is an association of persons engaged in the business of precious metals of Gold and Silver in the State of Kerala. About 5000 merchants doing business of gold and silver in the State of Kerala are members of the 1^st petitioner. The 2^nd petitioner is the President of 1^st petitioner and is engaged in the business of gold/jewellery. Petitioners are aggrieved by the recent amendments made by respondents 1 and 2 in the relevant Specification (IS 1417- 2016) whereby Unique alphanumeric ID Code (UAID Code) was insisted for every gold article as it unreasonably restricts the right to trade/business and the same is illegal and manifestly arbitrary. The 2^nd respondent - the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) is established under Section 3 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Act 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “the BIS Act”) inter alia for the purpose of standardizing and ensuring quality assurance of goods, processes, systems and services and also for ensuring the purity of precious metals. The Act provides for the hallmarking of precious metal articles in terms with Section 2 (16). The BIS Act mandates for establishment of Assaying and Hallmarking Centers as defined under (2) of the Act in terms of Section 14 (5) for the purpose of testing the precious metal articles and applying the mark under the Act to deal with hallmarked products. In exercise of the powers conferred by 9 read with Sections 13 and 14 of the Act, the 2^nd respondent, with the previous approval of the 1^st respondent notified the Bureau of Indian Standards (Hallmarking) Regulations, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as “BIS Hallmarking Regulations”). As per notification dated 14.06.2018, gold jewellery and gold artefacts and silver jewellery and artefacts were notified as precious metal articles that are to be marked with hallmark for the purposes of (1) of the Act. It is submitted that though notification was issued, the same was not made compulsory. Despite this many members of the 1^st petitioner accepted the Hallmarking. However, as per Ext.P3 order, the selling of precious metal articles of gold marked with hallmark through certified sales outlets was made compulsory. Later by Ext.P5 order, the hallmarking order 2020 was made applicable only to just 256 (out of 742) districts in the country due to lack of hallmarking facilities in the country. The 2^nd respondent has earlier issued Ext.P6 wherein it is specified that the hallmarking articles shall carry four markings, i.e., 1. BIS Standard Mark, 2. Purity in Carat and fineness. 3. Assay Centers Identification Mark and Number. 4. Jeweller’s Identification Mark. But Ext.P6 was amended as per Ext.P7 whereby a “Unique Alpha Numeric ID” (UAID) was made mandatory for each gold article and the same was intimated as per Ext.P8. Petitioners submit that making the Unique Alpha Numeric ID mandatory is manifestly arbitrary and is an unreasonable restriction to the fundamental right to carry business to the petitioners. It is further submitted that Clause 6.1(a)(3) of Ext.P7 is manifestly arbitrary and is an unreasonable restriction to the fundamental right to carry business to the petitioners. Unique identity presupposes uniqueness of the identified material all throughout. If a particular subject could be validly alerted/modified/customized then assigning a unique identity would be counterproductive. So