The QCO regime: India must align regulations with manufacturing ambition

A high-level committee headed by NITI Aayog member Rajiv Gauba has reportedly suggested scrapping or deferring more than 200 quality-control orders (QCOs) issued under the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) Act. These orders, meant to curb substandard imports and ensure consumer safety, have grown far beyond their original purpose. The number of products covered has risen from fewer than 100 a decade ago to about 800 today, extending beyond finished goods to raw materials and intermediates. This expansion has come at a cost. Certification delay, rising compliance burdens, and supply-chain bottlenecks have slowed production, especially for micro, small, and medium enterprises. What began as a drive to improve quality has, in many cases, turned into bureaucratic overreach, essentially to create import barriers. The certification process under the BIS often takes months, and for smaller firms, already operating on thin margins, such rigidities act as barriers to growth and innovation. 

Evidence suggests that the costs outweigh the benefits. A recent paper published by the Centre for Social and Economic Progress, using the trade data from 2000 to 2023, found that over time imports of QCO-linked goods fell by about 24 per cent, while exports showed no significant change. The system has thus functioned more as a protectionist wall. It may have restrained some low-quality imports but has also restricted access to key intermediates and capital goods. The impact has been uneven across sectors: Industries such as metals, chemicals, and textiles, which rely heavily on imported inputs and are labour-intensive, have faced disproportionate disruption, showing the limits of a one-size-fits-all approach. The committee’s proposal is timely. India needs a more balanced framework that distinguishes between consumer protection and industrial growth. 

Reform must also focus on how standards are adhered to. India still lacks an adequate accredited testing and certification infrastructure. Many QCOs were introduced before sufficient laboratory capacity was in place, resulting in long waiting periods and added costs. Expanding testing facilities, decentralising BIS approvals, and recognising credible third-party certification would make the system more efficient and transparent. Predictable timelines and clear communication would further restore business confidence. Another persistent issue is limited stakeholder engagement. A recent survey by Chase Advisors, a public-policy consulting firm, on QCO execution found that a majority of firms were consulted before draft notifications, but far fewer had meaningful participation in the post-draft phase. Many also received little transition time to adapt. Regular, structured consultation between the BIS, industry associations, and exporters is essential. A centralised digital platform that consolidates QCO notifications, mapping the harmonised-system code, and compliance procedures across ministries would further reduce confusion and enhance transparency. 

Aligning domestic standards with global benchmarks such as those set by the International Organization for Standardization and the International Electrotechnical Commission is equally vital. Divergence from international norms limits export competitiveness and weakens India’s integration into global supply chains. Rationalising the QCO framework does not mean lowering standards; it means applying them where they are needed, and not with the intention of restricting imports. Streamlined standards and credible enforcement can turn India’s quality framework into a driver of competitiveness and international manufacturing credibility.