AI Overview...

Challenging BIS Notifications: A Legal Guide

The Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) plays a crucial role in ensuring product quality and consumer safety in India through its notifications mandating certification for various goods. However, businesses often challenge BIS notifications when they perceive them as restrictive, ultra vires, or violative of fundamental rights. This blog post examines key legal principles, court rulings, and strategies drawn from landmark judgments to help understand the viability of such challenges.

Disclaimer: This article provides general information based on judicial precedents and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for case-specific guidance, as outcomes depend on individual facts.

Understanding BIS Notifications and Grounds for Challenge

BIS notifications, issued under the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 2016, typically mandate compulsory registration or marking for products like electronics, chemicals, textiles, and food items to protect public health and prevent unfair trade practices. Common grounds for challenging BIS notifications include:

• Violation of Article 19(1)(g): Alleged unreasonable restrictions on trade and business.


• Ultra vires the BIS Act: Claims that notifications exceed statutory powers under Sections 15-17.


• Non-compliance with natural justice: Lack of prior hearing or stakeholder consultation.


• Discrimination or arbitrariness: Under Article 14 of the Constitution.

Courts generally uphold these notifications if they serve public interest, but intervene if procedural lapses or overreach is evident. Century Plyboards (I) Ltd. vs Union Of India - 2025 Supreme(Gau) 571

Key Case: Mandatory BIS Marking on Phenol and Melamine

In a challenge to recommendations for mandatory BIS marking on phenol and melamine, petitioners argued abuse of power and violation of international trade agreements like the TBT Agreement. The court dismissed the writ petition, holding:

The recommendation was within the powers of the Central Government to protect public health and safety, and prevent unfair trade practices. Century Plyboards (I) Ltd. vs Union Of India - 2025 Supreme(Gau) 571

It emphasized judicial restraint in policy matters requiring technical expertise, limiting review to legality rather than wisdom of the decision. The process involved stakeholder consultations, adhering to statutory requirements. Century Plyboards (I) Ltd. vs Union Of India - 2025 Supreme(Gau) 571

Exemptions and Applicability: Importers vs. Manufacturers

A frequent point of contention is the scope of exemptions in Quality Control Orders (QCOs), such as the Medical Textiles (Quality Control) Order, 2024.

• 
  

  Importers' Plight: In a case involving confiscation of sanitary napkins for BIS non-compliance, an importer claimed exemption timelines for micro enterprises. The court ruled:

  
  

  
  

  Exemptions under the Medical Textiles (Quality Control) Order apply only to manufacturers, not to importers seeking BIS compliance. M/s.Urban Essentials India Private Limited, rep.by its Director Shri Ketan Munoth vs The Commissioner of Customs (Imports), No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-1 - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 64533

  
  

  
  


• 
  

  Petition dismissed, directing pursuit of alternative remedies like appeals. This highlights that relaxations benefit domestic producers, not importers. M/s.Urban Essentials India Private Limited, rep.by its Director Shri Ketan Munoth vs The Commissioner of Customs (Imports), No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-1 - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 64533

  
  

Similar issues arose in Electronics and Information Technology Goods (Requirement for Compulsory Registration) Order 2012, where challenges under Article 19(1)(g) failed as courts found policy decisions justified for consumer safety. GLOBAL EXCESS VS UNION OF INDIA - 2014 Supreme(Guj) 247

Packaged Drinking Water and Food Standards

Notifications including packaged drinking water as 'Food' under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, via Section 2(v), withstood challenges. Courts upheld:

Packaged drinking water can be included as 'Food' by way of notification under Section 2(v)(c) of the Act. Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd VS Union Of India - 2012 Supreme(Del) 679

Petitions against labeling directions under IS 14543:2004 were also dismissed, reinforcing BIS's regulatory authority. B.C. SHARMA & ANOTHER vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. vs UNION OF INDIA

Judicial Review and Principles of Natural Justice

Challenging BIS notifications often invokes Article 226 writ jurisdiction. Courts apply principles of natural justice, requiring fair hearings and reasoned decisions. In tender and procurement cases linked to BIS standards:

• Violation Found: In a cellular mobile service tender, omission from a revised list without hearing breached natural justice. The court noted:

  
  

  Before doing so, as rightly urged by this appellant ought to have been heard - Therefore there is a clear violation of the principle of natural justice. Tata Cellular VS Union Of India - 1994 Supreme(SC) 697

  
  

  
  

However, in policy-driven BIS matters, courts defer to executive wisdom if procedures are followed. For instance, Ministry of Steel notifications on steel procurement requiring BIS certification were directed to be aligned in CPWD manuals, emphasizing transparency. Central Public Works Department VS SRMB Srijan Private Limited - 2024 Supreme(Cal) 240 SRMB Srijan Private Limited VS Union of India - 2023 Supreme(Cal) 556

Broader Constitutional Challenges

• Article 14 and 19: Restrictions upheld if reasonable. In electronics QCOs, no ultra vires finding despite Article 19(1)(g) claims. GLOBAL EXCESS VS UNION OF INDIA - 2014 Supreme(Guj) 247


• Judicial Restraint: Courts should exercise restraint in policy matters, particularly those requiring technical expertise. Century Plyboards (I) Ltd. vs Union Of India - 2025 Supreme(Gau) 571

In Bio-diesel regulations under Essential Commodities Act, challenges to prohibitory notifications failed due to ceased operations, rendering issues moot. AJANTHA MARKETING Vs THE STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS - 2019 Supreme(Online)(KER) 65589

Steel Procurement and CPWD Manual Alignment

CPWD's manual clashing with Ministry of Steel notifications on primary/secondary producers and BIS quality certification led to directives for amendment:

Quality certification would be as per the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) or any other designated authorities as per the BIS Act. Central Public Works Department VS SRMB Srijan Private Limited - 2024 Supreme(Cal) 240

Courts clarified that producer classification does not impact quality, which must meet BIS standards uniformly. SRMB Srijan Private Limited VS Union of India - 2023 Supreme(Cal) 556

Excise and BIS Compliance in Petroleum Products

In central excise disputes, failure to meet BIS 2796:2000 for Ethanol Blended Petrol (EBP) did not attract Section 11D recovery if no separate duty collection was shown. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Belapur Commissionerate VS Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. - 2023 Supreme(Bom) 1397

Strategies for Successfully Challenging BIS Notifications

1. Demonstrate Procedural Irregularity: Prove lack of hearing or consultation. Tata Cellular VS Union Of India - 1994 Supreme(SC) 697


2. Prove Ultra Vires: Show notification exceeds BIS Act powers (rarely successful). Century Plyboards (I) Ltd. vs Union Of India - 2025 Supreme(Gau) 571


3. Highlight Discrimination: Evidence of arbitrary application. M/s.Urban Essentials India Private Limited, rep.by its Director Shri Ketan Munoth vs The Commissioner of Customs (Imports), No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-1 - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 64533


4. Exhaust Remedies: Courts prefer appeals before writs. M/s.Urban Essentials India Private Limited, rep.by its Director Shri Ketan Munoth vs The Commissioner of Customs (Imports), No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-1 - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 64533


5. Public Interest Counter: BIS defends on consumer safety grounds, often prevailing.

Key Takeaways

• Challenging BIS notifications succeeds mainly on procedural grounds, not policy merits.


• Courts uphold notifications protecting public health under BIS Act Sections 15-17.


• Importers face stricter compliance than exempted manufacturers.


• Judicial review is limited; pursue alternative remedies first.


• Align business practices with notifications to avoid confiscations or penalties.

In summary, while challenging BIS notifications is possible, success rates are low unless clear legal infirmities exist. Businesses should prioritize compliance while monitoring updates via BIS portals. For tailored advice, engage legal experts familiar with regulatory litigation.