Consumer safety regulation upheld: compulsory registration and testing requirements for electronics were held constitutionally valid.

Compulsory registration and testing requirements for electronics and information technology goods were upheld as a valid regulatory measure aimed at consumer safety and conformity with notified standards. The Gujarat HC held that the order was issued within the statutory framework under the BIS Act and Rules, and that restrictions supporting public policy and public interest can be justified under Article 19(6). Judicial review in such matters is limited to illegality, jurisdictional excess, error of law, breach of natural justice, or manifest unreasonableness. The fact that the regime could make parallel imports more difficult did not make it unconstitutional, because it imposed compliance requirements rather than a complete ban. The challenge therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Electronics and Information Technology Goods (Requirement for Compulsory Registration) Order, 2012 and the notifications issued pursuant thereto were ultra vires the Constitution or otherwise invalid for imposing compulsory registration and testing requirements on electronics and information technology goods.

Analysis: The challenged order was issued under section 10(1)(p) of the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986 read with rule 13(fa) of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987 and was aimed at ensuring that electronics and information technology goods conform to notified safety standards. The requirement applied as a consumer-protection measure and was held to be a regulatory condition in the interest of the general public. The Court held that restrictions under Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India may be justified by public policy and public interest, and that judicial review in such policy matters is limited to examining legality, jurisdictional excess, error of law, breach of natural justice, or manifest unreasonableness. The fact that compliance might make parallel imports more difficult did not render the order unconstitutional, since the measure did not amount to a complete ban but only required conformity to the prescribed standards and registration process.

Conclusion: The impugned order and the consequential notifications were held to be valid and not ultra vires Article 19(1)(g) or any other provision of law; the challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A regulatory measure imposed in the interest of consumer safety and public welfare is a permissible restriction under Article 19(6), and a court will not strike down such policy unless it is shown to be unlawful, unreasonable, or beyond the authority conferred by statute.

---