Media Map Network -

Anil Jauhri

New Delhi I Friday I 24-04-2026

One periodically comes across rhetoric advocating ‘one nation one standard’ or ‘single national standard’ while the government pushes on signing more and more free trade agreements with the aim of seeking access to global markets.
Are the two approaches even compatible what to talk of if they are desirable in Indian context?
Let us first examine what is this ‘one standard’ or ‘single national standard’ being talked about?
This question becomes important since we as a country mix regulations and standards unlike developed economies who, as defined in the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement), treat standards as voluntary standards separate from regulations which are enforced by law and obligatory for businesses.
As we know, the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) is the acknowledged national standards body – so are its standards THE national standard we are talking about?
Or are the ‘standards’ notified by the regulators like FSSAI in food or CDSCO in drugs and medical devices ‘national standards’?
Let us consider some examples!
BIS has published two standards on organic foods:
IS 16550 : Part 1 : 2016 (Reaffirmed Year : 2021 ) - Organic Production System and Labelling of Organically Produced Products Part 1 Crop Based
IS 16550 : Part 2 : 2021 - Organically produced food products - Part 2, Animal based
Are these the national standards?
The Food Safety and Standards (Organic Foods) Regulations, 2017 reference the following:
(i)   National Programme for Organic Production (NPOP);
(ii)   Participatory Guarantee System for India (PGS-India).
(iii)   Any other system or standards as may be notified by the Food Authority from time to time.
The NPOP in turn refers to ‘National Standards for Organic Production’ which are referenced in FSSAI regulation too.
So which is the national standard?
Obviously the one prescribed by the regulator, FSSAI.
Not the ones published by BIS.
Incidentally while the BIS Act, 2016 confers on BIS the role of national standards body, it nowhere refers to ‘national standard’ but to ‘Indian Standard’ which is defined as:
(17) "Indian Standard" means the standard including any tentative or provisional standard established and published by the Bureau, in relation to any goods, article, process, system or service, indicative of the quality and specification of such goods, article, process, system or service and includes—
(i) any standard adopted by the Bureau under sub-section (2) of section 10; and
(ii) any standard established and published, or recognised, by the Bureau of Indian Standards established under the Bureau of Indian Standard Act, 1986, which was in force immediately before the commencement of this Act;
So while BIS has a legal right over the expression ‘Indian Standard’, it has no legal claim to expression ‘national standard’ – And rightly so!
This should settle one debate – that whatever ‘standard’ is notified by the regulator in a regulated sector becomes the ‘national standard’.
This could be even be BIS standards as notified under the various Quality Control Orders or even by CDSCO for medical devices under the Medical Devices Rules, 2017.
Let us now consider the question of ‘single national standard’ or ’one standard’.
Is this feasible or even desirable?
Let us deal with regulated sectors first.
Its an accepted reality that in most sectors – be it agrifood or pharma where we are huge exporters – domestic regulations are not at par with global regulations implying thereby that the ‘national standards’ are below global standards.
However, when we export, we need to meet global standards and in some cases, say Organic production by APEDA or selected food products like seafood or dairy by EIC, we have adopted and notified standards by law which are on par with global regulations. Only a part of the industry which can meet global standards and wishes to export needs to comply with such standards and not the entire domestic industry.
Which means that even in regulated sectors, we have actually notified different standards for domestic market and exports. And rightly so!
This actually reflects the reality of Indian industry in general – the inability to adopt international standards in entirety in the domestic regulations given the large population of small and micro enterprises.
This means that while we may have domestic standards – national or Indian – there is a case for adopting international standards as aspirational standards at least for voluntary compliance to encourage industry to aim for these.
In fact, while notifying the licensing regulations in 2011, FSSAI recognized it could not prescribe HACCP for high risk sectors as is the global norm and chose to reference India HACCP standards for voluntary compliance thus:
“These are the basic - compulsory requirements for ensuring safety of the food manufactured in any premise and FBOs shall continuously try to improve the sanitary and hygienic conditions at the premises with a goal of attaining India HACCP standards within a - previously determined period.”
The IndiaHACCP standards and certification were later introduced by QCI with the support of FSSAI.
Have reached the stage where we can prescribe HACCP by law for even high risk sectors 15 years later. Sadly now. So IndiaHACCP remains an aspirational standard that we do need.
The same applies to services.
What would be national standards in healthcare? Obviously those notified as minimum standards under the Clinical Establishment Act. Not the voluntary accreditation standards by NABH or other players in the market.
And in education? Regulatory standards set by UGC or AICTE or NCM or NCISM for compliance would be rightfully considered the national standards. Yet we felt the need for accreditation and rating and notified additional standards to promote excellence. That is the way it should be except that it would be desirable to house regulations and voluntary standards separately so that regulators focus on what is their real mandate – to enforce minimum standards!
The foregoing clearly shows that there is room for standards beyond ‘national standards’ even in regulated sectors to encourage industry to aim for global standards and excellence – maybe in a phased manner like Coffee Board’s recently launched coffee sustainability standard for plantations is aiming with three levels of standards to set growers on a journey towards sustainability.
There is also the tribe of private standards which challenge many sectors in India – agrifood, textiles, wooden handicrafts, paper etc. In some of these areas, India has developed standards to match globally accepted standards and successfully benchmarked them e.g. for Forest management and Trees outside Forests standards of the NCCF (nccf.in) or IndGAP standards by QCI which for a while were benchmarked with GlobalGAP.
BIS has issued IS 15930 series of standards for good agricultural practices but are these the national standards or the ones by QCI which were once benchmarked with globally popular GlobalG.A.P. standards. Surely the ones by QCI if they work in the market.
The Coffee Board’s sustainable coffee standard for growers has been similarly developed with an intent to benchmark it internationally.
Therefore, we have to be realistic and practical – while we may develop standards which suit domestic industry, and enforce them by law, they may not work in global market and hence the need for multiple standards to encourage industry to aspire for them and promote excellence. Until we reach a stage where we can embrace global standards in our domestic regime.

समृद्धि को रद्दी में फेंकती अर्थव्यवस्था: गाड़ियों की अनिवार्य स्क्रैपिंग नीति पर पुनर्विचार की ज़रूरत

22 Aug 2025

About Us

We must explain to you how all seds this mistakens idea off denouncing pleasures and praising pain was born and I will give you a completed accounts..