Delhi High Court Dismisses Summons Against H&M for Purported Breach of Legal Metrology Regulations

The Delhi High Court recently invalidated a summoning order directed at fashion brand H&M following an inspection carried out at one of its retail stores by a legal metrology department inspector.

The inspection occurred at H&M's retail store in Select City Walk, Saket, by an inspector from the legal metrology department. The inspection report raised allegations regarding the conversion of a cardigan's size into meters, potentially implicating H&M under Rule 13(3)(b) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011.

Subsequent to the inspection, an undated notice was sent to H&M on January 31, 2016, asserting a breach of Rule 13(3)(b) of the 2011 rules. H&M was then directed to pay a penalty and fees of Rs 2,000 under the Legal Metrology Act.

In response, H&M approached the consumer affairs secretary on February 24, 2016, seeking clarification that the 2011 rules didn't apply to their open-sold products. Subsequently, the Delhi legal metrology department filed a complaint, leading to a summons on May 2, 2016. H&M then approached the high court against this summons.

Justice Amit Bansal, presiding over the case, revoked the summoning order on July 24. The judge noted that the order was issued mechanically without considering the relevant legal provisions. The impugned order failed to recognize that H&M's goods were sold as loose items, enabling customers to try or inspect them. Consequently, they wouldn't fall under the scope of the 2011 Rules, rendering the initiation of proceedings untenable.

The high court reviewed the 2011 rules and confirmed their applicability to 'pre-packaged commodities'. Additionally, the court noted that the respondent department acknowledged in their response to H&M's plea that the mandatory labeling requirement for 'prepackaged commodities' didn't apply to garments sold in a loose form.

Considering these aspects, Justice Bansal concluded that H&M's goods were sold in a loose form and didn't meet the criteria of a 'pre-packaged commodity'. In light of this interpretation, the court found that the case lacked the elements required for an offense under Section 13(3)(b) of the 2011 Rules.

Author: Anushka Taraniya

News Writer, MIT ADT University