India Against Corruption- A Jan Lokpal Bill has been designed which has strong measures to bring all corrupt people to book. Join the cause and fight to force politicians to implement this powerful bill as an act in the parliament.
Part III - Packaged drinking water in 250 ml PP Glasses
Today in a family function, guests were served packageddrinking water in 250 ml PP Glasses. Click on the image to see the marking details. Batch No, and Packing Date are not marked. I checked thecardboard carton also. It was blank, no information printed.
Is this the way licensees are allowed to market PDW with ISI Mark?
Manufacturer has declared shelf life as 90 days from date of manufacturing. WHICH DATE OF MANUFACTURING? Also, had BIS ever checked and verified this shelf life as declared by the manufacturer?
I also visited BIS Website. Variety covered (at S. No. 36 of List of Licensees for Delhi) - 20 litre PET Jar. When I clicked on this a page was opened where variety covered is litre PET Jar and 250 ml PP Glasses. Which is correct?
No batch No., no Packing date, this is how manufacturers market drinking water with ISI Mark without testing and hide production to save on MF. BIS officers take bribe and turn a blind eye. The are not even bothered that such untested drinking water is a health hazard for consumers.
Govt. of India has made ISI Marking mandatory for Packaged Drinking Water (PDW) for safety and health of consumers. In this part I will demonstrate if ISI mark is ensuring the quality of PDW or is cheating the consumer.
As per GOI order, PDW should conform to Indian Standard, IS 14543. The STI prescribed for this by BIS is Doc: STI/14543/6, August 2005 as per IS 14543: 2005 with 2 amendments. Let us find out how BIS ensures compliance of following requirements of STI:
Clause 1.0 LABORATORY- A laboratory shall be maintained, which shall be suitably equipped and staffed, where different tests given in the specification shall be carried out in accordance with the methods given in the specification. AND
Clause 13.0 STOP MARKING - The marking of the product shall be stopped under intimation to the Bureau if, at any time, there is some difficulty in maintaining the conformity of the product to the specification, or the testing equipment goes out of order. The marking may be resumed as soon as the defects are removed under intimation to BIS.
In December 2009, Vigilance department of BIS carried out raids on three licensees of PDW in Mumbai. During this raid following serious discrepancies amongst others were found:
a)QC in-charge, responsible for testing of PDW, was found incompetent.
b)Some testing equipment were found missing and some were found faulty.
c)Test records were maintained without doing actual testing.
d)PDW dispatched in the market without testing.
After the raids, local BIS office was informed and routine actions were taken. Licensees were advised to stop marking, they took corrective actions which were verified by local office and self-marking rights were restored.
Now let us see, what was not checked and how consumer was cheated.
It was clear that Packaged Drinking Water was sent in the market without testing but BIS officers did not check from which date it was being marketed without testing. They did not advise the licensees to immediately withdraw all Packaged Drinking Water available in the market. They did not advise the licensee to issue a notice in the media that consumers should not buy and consume Packaged Drinking Water of their brands as the same was not tested. Inspite of knowing it that Packaged Drinking Water available in the market (of these brands) could cause health problems to consumers as it has not been tested, BIS officers did not take any corrective and preventive action.
Under clause 13.0 of STI, licensees were required to stop marking on their own and inform BIS about it, but they did not comply with this statutory requirement. BIS officers also failed to record this serious discrepancy and did not seek licensees’ explanation on this. This is one requirement which is not checked in any BIS inspection and consumer, unknown of the potential health hazard, is left to consume hazardous ISI marked products. If this is not cheating and stabbing the consumer in the back then what else will constitute cheating and stabbing in back?
Were these BIS officers incompetent or they intentionally failed to protect consumer interest for some favour from the licensees. I have posted these “cheat the consumer” real stories of BIS on my blog MANAK. If you want to read the details then click on the following links:
In my earlier post, ISI Mark – Symbol of ‘Quality’ or ‘Cheating’? - I submitted that ISI Mark is no more seen as a symbol of quality by majority of consumers. Confidence generated in ISI Mark in last 50 plus years is being misused by BIS licensees to cheat the consumer. Statutory provisions of BIS Certification Regulations are being openly violated by a management indifferent to consumer interest. Number of complaints have been sent to BIS vigilance department, number of articles have been posted on my blog MANAK, number of RTI applications have been filed, but it could not make any dent in corruption apparatus. Has BIS created a national standard for administrative corruption. Those involved in corruption openly say that no body can do anything against them.
On its website, BIS makes tall claims - The BIS Product certification Scheme operates in an impartial, non discriminatory and transparent manner. The documents stating the powers, rights and responsibilities of BIS and the affected sectors of society are published by the Government of India as the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986, Rules and (Certification) Regulations, 1988. The specific procedure for operating a license are given in another document called the Scheme of Testing and Inspection (STI). Procedures provide for maintaining a very high degree of confidentiality and integrity among its personnel who perform certification related tasks. A body called the ' Certification Advisory Committee (CAC)' composed of persons from varied sectors like manufacturers, consumers, Government agencies, industries associations reviews the performance of the scheme and advises on key policy issues. Internally, a senior functionary designated as 'Additional Director General (Marks)' (ADGM) is responsible for ensuring that the scheme operates within the framework of rules and procedures established.
Anybody associated with BIS will have no hesitation is saying that all above claims are false. Impartiality, non-discrimination and transparency have lost their meaning in greed and corruption. Statutory provisions of Certification Regulations and STI are violated openly in connivance with licensees. Words like confidentiality and integrity have long been removed from BIS dictionary. CAC has not met for long. For ADGM certification is a foreign word. His only contribution to BIS is that he is always ready with his bags packed to proceed on pleasure trips in India and abroad.
In my subsequent parts I will deal with how consumers are being cheated.
You must have seen a mark on various products you use and which is popularly known as ISI Mark. As per the information available on the website of Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), presence of this mark on a product is an assurance of conformity to the specifications. Use of this mark is allowed to product manufacturers (licensees) under Product Certification Scheme of BIS which aims at providing Third Party Guarantee of quality, safety and reliability of products to the ultimate customer (consumer). The conformity is ensured by regular surveillance of the licensee's performance by surprise inspections and testing of samples, drawn both from the factory and market. Click here to read details on BIS website.
When BIS's predecessor, the Indian Standards Institution (ISI) began operating this product certification Scheme in 1955, this concept was unknown to Indian consumer. With hard and sincere work put in by ISI officers and staff, the concept started gaining confidence of Indian consumer, and soon ISI Mark became a household name. The mark became a symbol of quality both for individual consumers and bulk buyers.
In 1986, ISI became BIS through a legislative Act of the Indian Parliament, known as the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986, With change in name, entire culture of ISI changed. It became a pleasure ground of IAS officers who changed its character from a S&T organization to a bureaucratic organization. Today three top positions of BIS are occupied by IAS. Head of vigilance department is also an IAS. Efforts are on way to post IAS officers in regions also.
AJoint Parliamentary Committee was constituted by the Parliament on 22.08.2003 on Pesticide Residues in and Safety Standards for Soft Drinks, Fruit Juice and Other Beverages,under the Chairmanship of Sharad Pawar. One of the recommendations of JPC was that BIS should be headed by an eminent scientist who can infuse dynamism in its working. As the fate would have it, Sharad Pawar became Minister of Consumer Affairs in the next government and in that capacity became President of BIS. It was most unfortunate that as JPC Chairman, he had recommended that BIS should be headed by an eminent scientist but as BIS President he did not implement his own recommendation. After becoming President BIS, he started sending IAS officers as DG BIS and soon BIS top was packed with IAS officers.
For majority of consumers, ISI mark is no more a symbol of quality. They are least bothered whether the product he is buying is marked with ISI Mark or not. There is a joke –
Consumer 1 asked Consumer 2, ‘do you use ISI Marked products?’
'No', replied Consumer 2.
‘You must have worked in BIS’, observed Consumer 1.
Through ISI Mark scheme, third party guarantee of quality, safety and reliability of products and their conformity to standards is claimed to be ensured by regular surveillance of the licensee's performance by surprise inspections and testing of samples, drawn both from the factory and market. As per Certification Regulations, minimum two surprise inspections should be carried out. In each inspection, minimum one sample should be tested in factory and minimum one sample should be drawn from factory for testing in an independent laboratory. In addition, after each inspection, minimum one sample should be drawn from market for testing in an independent laboratory.
I filed a RTI with BIS to provide information about 30 licenses of electric cables in Delhi and audited the information provided. Here are the findings of the audit:
a) No inspection was done in the whole year in case of 12 licenses.
b) Only one inspection was done in the whole year in case of 16 licenses.
c) Two inspections were done in the whole year in case of only 2 licenses.
d) Only 14 samples were tested in the factory against minimum 60 samples.
e) Only 13 samples were taken from the factory for independent testing against minimum 60 samples.
f) Only 3 samples were procured from the market for independent testing against minimum 60 samples.
How BIS can guarantee the quality of ISI marked products with above 'almost nil' monitoring? Required numbers of inspections are not carried out and also required numbers of samples are not tested. If it is not cheating then what else?
For details of the above audit you can click on the following links:
Citizen Audit of BIS Product Certification (ISI Mark) Scheme
फोटो पर क्लिक करें और यह खबर पढ़ें. सरकार के एक मंत्री का कहना है कि जो सरकारी बाबू अपने कार्यकाल में प्रभावशाली भूमिका निभा सकते थे पर निभा नहीं निभा पाए वह सेवा-निवृत्त होने के बाद संत हो जाते हैं. मंत्रीजी ने नाम तो नहीं लिया पर लगता है कि उनका ईशारा अभी-अभी सेवा-निवृत्त हुए केन्द्रीय सतर्कता आयुक्त श्री प्रत्यूष सिन्हा की तरफ है. इन सरकारी बाबू ने सेवा-निवृत्त होने के बाद शायद यह कहा कि एक तिहाई भारतीय जबदस्त भ्रष्टाचारी हैं, और आधे भारतीय भ्रष्टाचार की लक्ष्मण रेखा पार कर चुके या करने वाले हैं.
बात तो मंत्रीजी ने सही कही है. ऐसा अक्सर सेवा-निवृत्त बाबुओं के साथ होता है. पर सिन्हा साहब ने जो कहा है उस में भी कुछ सच्चाई है. भ्रष्टाचार का दायरा लगातार बढ़ता जा रहा है और लगातार नए लोग इस में शामिल होते जा रहे हैं. भ्रष्टाचार के खिलाफ सरकार की इच्छा शक्ति बहुत कमजोर है. संगठित तौर पर जो भ्रष्टाचार होता है उस के खिलाफ मुहिम छेड़ने के बजाय सरकार उस में शामिल लोगों के साथ खड़ी नजर आती है. साझा धन खेलों का उदाहरण सब के सामने है. इन खेलो में भ्रष्टाचार से जितना काला धन पैदा हुआ है उस से इन खेलों को अगर काला धन खेल कहा जाय तो गलत नहीं होगा.
सिन्हा साहब के बारे में मेरा अनुभव संतोषदायक नहीं है. भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो में हुए भ्रष्टाचार पर मेरी शिकायतों पर उनका व्यवहार बहुत दुखद रहा. जिन ब्यूरो अधिकारियों और ब्यूरो के केन्द्रीय सतर्कता अधिकारी (सीवीओ) के खिलाफ शिकायतें की गईं, सिन्हा साहब ने उन शिकायतों को वापस उन्हें ही भेज दिया और यह भी लिख दिया कि वह जो ठीक समझें कार्यवाही करें और केन्द्रीय सतर्कता आयोग को कोई रिपोर्ट भेजने की जरूरत नहीं है. परिणाम स्वरुप सारी शिकायतें दबा दी गईं. मुझे चुप कराने के लिए भी यह कहा गया कि जब तक सिन्हा साहब सीवीसी हैं कोई उनका कुछ नहीं बिगाड़ सकता. एक शिकायत सीवीसी में रजिस्टर भी हो गई, पर उस को भी सीवीओ को ही भेज दिया गया, हाँ यह जरूर कहा गया कि तीन महीने में अपनी रिपोर्ट आयोग को भेजें. आज आठ महीने हो रहे हैं, सीवीसी की वेबसाईट पर यही लिखा आ रहा है कि सीवीओ ने अभी तक रिपोर्ट नहीं भेजी है. यह है सिन्हा साहब के काम का एक छोटा हिस्सा जो उन्होंने सीवीसी के रूप में किया. अब वह सेवा-निवृत्त हो गए हैं और आधे भारतीय नागरिकों पर भ्रष्टाचार का आरोप लगा रहे हैं. मंत्रीजी के अनुसार वह अब संत हो गए हैं.
Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) has posted a draft document on its website inviting comments on National Anti-Corruption Strategy. Last date of submitting comments is 20 September 2010. CLICK to read the draft and summary.
As per Preface – “The National Anti-Corruption Strategy represents a blue print for commitment and action by the various stakeholders to the governance process. It aims at systematic and conscious reshaping of the country’s national integrity system. The strategy recommends a set of action to be taken by the government and a set of action by the political entities, judiciary, media, citizens, private sector and civil society organizations. To ensure that the strategy does not remain a mere document, it is envisaged to ensure its effective implementation by developing suitable parameters for evaluating and monitoring the progress of its implementation. The CVC would review the progress on an annual basis and submit a report to the Parliament.”
Chapter VIII deals with the role of citizens in anti-corruption. Success in the battle against corruption hinges upon citizen participation in ushering in transparency and accountability. Citizens have a tremendous potential to participate directly and contribute at bringing about change using tools such as moral appeals, exposure and embarrassment, appeals to pride, standing and responsibility besides standing up and playing a key role in exposing wrong doing and non compliances.
As a citizen (grahak of services) and as a stakeholder to the governance process, I agree with this strategy. I am studying the document and will submit my comments. I will also post my comments on this blog.
My request is to all citizens to read and comment on this document, as the strategy and its effective and efficient implementation will ultimately help them.
भारतसरकारकाएकमंत्रालयहै - उपभोक्तामामले, खाध्यएवंसार्वजनिकवितरणमंत्रालय. इसकेमंत्रीहैंश्रीशरदपवार, राज्यमंत्रीहैंप्रो. केवीथामस. इसमंत्रालयकेअंतर्गतएकविभागहै - उपभोक्तामामलेविभाग. इसविभागकेअंतर्गतहै - भारतीयमानकब्यूरो. भामाब्यूरोभारतकीराष्ट्रीयमानकसंस्थाहै. इस के महा-निदेशक हैं श्री शरद गुप्ता, आईएएस. अब यह मत पूछियेगा कि एक आईएएस इस साइंटिफिक संस्था में क्या कर रहा है? यही तो इस देश का दुर्भाग्य है कि यह सरकारी बाबू हर जगह घुसे हुए हैं और इन्होनें हर संस्था की हालत बुरी कर रखी है.
भामाब्यूरो, भारतीय संसद द्वारा पारित विधान "भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो अधिनियम १९८६" द्वारा प्रदत शक्ति से एक 'उत्पाद प्रमाणन योजना' चला रहा है जिसके अंतर्गत लाइसेंसधारी को मानक मुहर (आईएसआई मार्क) को अपने उत्पाद पर लगाने की स्वीकृति मिल जाती है. भामाब्यूरोकीयह उत्पाद प्रमाणन योजना आईएसओमार्गदर्शिका २८ पर आधारित है. इस योजना के अंतर्गतफैक्टरी की गुणताप्रबध पद्धति का मूल्यांकन किया जाता है, जिसमें फेक्ट्री की उत्पाद निर्माण छमता, परीक्षण छमता, कर्मचारियों की योग्यता एवं छमता का मूल्यांकन शामिल है. उत्पाद की मानक अनुरूपता को जांचने के लिए फैक्टरी में उत्पाद के नमूनों का परीक्षण किया जाता है. इसके अलाबा फेक्ट्री से लिए गए नमूनों का स्वतंत्र प्रयोगशालाओं में परीक्षण किया जाता है. सब कुछ सही पाए जाने पर ही मानक मुहर के उपयोग की स्वीकृति दी जाती है। इस मुहर का अर्थ यह है कि उत्पाद सम्बंधित राष्ट्रीय मानक की अपेक्षाओं के अनुरूप है.
पहले एक वर्ष में चार बार फेक्ट्री का निरीक्षण किया जाता था, एक वर्ष में उत्पाद के चार नमूनों का फेक्ट्री में परीक्षण किया जाता था. एक वर्ष में फेक्ट्री से लिए चार नमूनों का स्वतंत्र प्रयोगशाला में परीक्षण किया जाता था. एक वर्ष में उत्पाद के चार नमूने बाजार से खरीदे जाते थे और उनका स्वतंत्र प्रयोगशाला में परीक्षण किया जाता था. अब शायद सरकार और ब्यूरो को उपभोक्ता संरक्षण की उतनी चिंता नहीं रही. अब विधान में परिवर्तन कर दिया गया है - एक वर्ष में दो निरीक्षण, दो नमूने फेक्ट्री में, दो नमूने फेक्ट्री से लेकर और दो बाजार से खरीद कर परीक्षण करने का नियम बनाया गया है. इस नियम का भी पूरी तरह पालन नहीं किया जाता. न निरीक्षण पूरा होता है और न परीक्षण पूरा. कुछ केसेज में तो दो वर्ष बीत गए पर न निरीक्षण किया गया न परीक्षण.
एक और आघात जो इस योजना पर किया गया है वह है - अब अधिकतर निरीक्षण बाहर के लोगों से कराये जाते हैं. यह लोग भामाब्यूरो के निरीक्षकों के मुकाबले में योग्यता, अनुभव और ट्रेनिंग में काफी कमजोर हैं. एक मुख्य बात यह भी है कि इन बाहरी निरीक्षकों की सेवाएँ कानून का उल्लंघन करके ली जा रही हैं. इन बाहरी निरीक्षकों द्वारा अब तक जितने भी निरीक्षण किये गए हैं वह कानून की द्रष्टि से गैर-कानूनी हैं.
मैंने यह बात ब्यूरो और सरकार में हर स्तर पर उठा रखी है, प्रधानमंत्री और राष्ट्रपति तक. कुछ महीने पहले मेरा एक साक्षात्कार दूरदर्शन पर भी प्रसारित हुआ था. पर न ब्यूरो में और न ही सरकार में इस पर कोई कार्यवाही की गई है.
If you visit National Portal of India PAGE on ‘Bureau of Indian Standards’, you will find following information:
Hallmarking - Hallmarking of Gold Jewellery started in April 2000 on voluntary basis under BIS Act, 1986.
Similarly, on BIS website PAGE on ‘BIS Certification Scheme for hallmarking of Gold Jewellery’, you will find following information:
Government of India' has identified BIS a sole agency in India to operate this scheme. BIS hallmarking Scheme is voluntary in nature and is operating under BIS Act, Rules and Regulations.
Both these statements are misleading as this BIS Hallmarking Scheme has no legal backing of BIS Act, 1986, Rules and regulations.
Section 15 (1) of BIS Act, 1986 says that the Bureau may, by order, grant, renew, suspend or cancel a license in such manner as may be determined by regulations. BIS, so far, has not made any Regulations for operating Certification Scheme for Hallmarking of Gold Jewellery.
This issue has been raised by Mr. A L Makhijani, President of Forum for Good Governance, in September 2009 with BIS through a RTI application. BIS gave incomplete and misleading information. Mr. Makhijani submitted a representation to the Prime Minister in January 2010 with copies to Shri Sharad Pawar (Minster in-charge of BIS) and Secretary of Department of Consumer affairs, controlling ministry of BIS.
Till date, BIS and Government have not taken any action to notify regulations for Hallmarking Scheme. The scheme continues to be run without any legal backing of BIS Act; and both BIS and Government continue to mislead the consumer.
This is a very unfortunate situation. What a consumer is supposed to do when Government itself violates the law? Prime Minister has been informed about this illegality. Mainister in-charge of BIS and Secretary of controlling ministry have also been similarly informed. But no body is ready to do any thing. Sometimes I feel that the both BIS and Government are cheating the Indian consumer.
Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) operates a third-party product certification scheme under which it grants licenses to product manufacturers to use ISI Mark on their products. ISI mark on a iproduct means that the product conforms to the relevant Indian Standard. For the benefit of consumers, BIS issues advertisements in the media. One such advertisement issued by BIS is shown in the image. CLICK to read it.
In this advertisement, BIS has used a term 'sub-standard' but has not defined it. Does it mean that any product not having this mark is 'sub-standard', or a product having this mark can also be 'sub-standard'? I wrote an e-mail to BIS bit BIS did not reply. I sent three reminders but still no reply. Is BIS really concerned about the interest and safety of consumers., or issuing this advertisement is only a formality to indicate so in its annual report or satisfying consumer NGOs?
