Retail sale price regulation upheld as a valid consumer-protection measure under the packaged commodities framework.

Rules 2(r) and 23 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 were treated as valid consumer-protection measures within the rule-making power under the parent Act. The Court read the statutory scheme as requiring disclosure of the commodity identity, net quantity, unit sale price and sale price, and held that defining retail sale price as the maximum payable by the consumer, and prohibiting sale above that declared price, had a direct nexus with transparency in packaged goods. The restrictions on dealers were therefore incidental to the statutory object and were not arbitrary or unconstitutional under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) or 21.

---

---

Issues: Whether rule 2(r) and rule 23 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 were beyond the rule-making power under the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of section 39 and section 83 of the Act showed that packaged commodities were required to disclose the identity of the commodity, net quantity, unit sale price and sale price, and that the Central Government was empowered to frame rules to carry out the Act. Rule 2(r) defined retail sale price as the maximum price payable by the ultimate consumer, inclusive of taxes and allied charges, while rule 23 prohibited sale above that declared price. These provisions were read as consumer-protection measures directed to transparency in packaged goods and to ensuring that the consumer is informed of the price and contents of the package. The Court held that the expression retail sale price was capable of such a regulatory definition and that the rules had a direct nexus with the object of the Act. The restrictions on retail dealers were therefore treated as incidental to a valid consumer-protection regime and not as arbitrary or unreasonable interferences with trade.

Conclusion: Rule 2(r) and rule 23 were upheld as valid and not violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a parent statute is enacted for consumer protection in packaged commodities and expressly empowers rule-making to regulate declarations on packages, rules fixing a maximum retail sale price and prohibiting sale above that declared price are within the delegated power and do not, by themselves, amount to an unconstitutional restriction on or equality rights.

---