The Bombay High Court has held that helmets which do not conform to the Indian Standards prescribed under the Quality Control Order, 2020 cannot be permitted to be sold or used after June 1, 2021, even if they were imported before the said date. The Court, however, permitted that the seized helmets be returned to the petitioner subject to the condition that they shall be destructed/disposed of in such a manner which is permitted in law.

A Division Bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande was hearing a petition filed by Project Revolt LLP, a partnership firm engaged in selling motorcycle riding gear including safety helmets imported from different countries. The petitioner had sought quashing of the seizure of the helmets and the criminal proceedings initiated by the BIS.

The dispute concerned some helmets imported by the petitioner. The petitioner contended that the helmets imported by it are in conformity with the European Standards for the minimum safety requirements of a Motorcycle, which is more stringent than the Indian Standard. Hence, it contended that the action of search and seizure of helmets on account of violation of the provisions of the BIS Act was not justified. It was further contended that the Helmets in question were imported prior to 01/06/2021, i.e., the date on which the Quality Control Order (QCO) came into effect.

The Court noted that the BIS Act, 2016 prohibits manufacture, import, distribution, sale, storage or exhibition for sale of goods covered by Section 16 without the Standard Mark, except under a valid licence. It observed that the object of the QCO was to ensure that the risk of death, even if at all the bike rider is met with an accident, is minimized and there is no serious damage to the head.

The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Others, [(2017) 7 SCC 243] which concerned the prohibition on sale and registration of BS-III compliant vehicles after April 1, 2017. It noted that the Supreme Court had observed that a limited exception of allowing sale of BS-III compliant vehicles could not be interpreted as a carte blanche to the automobile industry to continue the manufacture of BS-III compliant vehicles till the very last date and then plead the necessity of clearing accumulated stock of such vehicles.

Applying the said decision to the present case, the Court held that the petitioner's request to permit sale of the helmets in the market was out of the question. It further noted that initiation of prosecution against the petitioners was dependent upon the mens rea of those who imported the helmets and that the BIS had said that if the helmets were not permitted to be sold in the market, the prosecution could be withdrawn, provided it was permissible to do so.

The Court directed the BIS not to continue the prosecution against the partners and officials of the petitioner and permitted the seized helmets to be returned to the petitioner.

“… we accede to the request of the Petitioner of the helmets being returned to them, subject to the condition that the same shall be destructed/disposed of in such a manner which is permitted in law, but in no case, they shall be permitted to be sold in the market,” the Court remarked.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition was partly allowed.

Case Title: Project Revolt LLP v. Bureau of Indian Standards [Writ Petition No. 2022 of 2023]

Click Here To Read/Download Order