Two things changed for packaged goods on 1 May 2026, and they pull in opposite directions. A first offence for a wrong declaration on a pack, including charging above MRP, is now met with a warning rather than a fine. But a third offence starts at ₹25 lakh and can reach ₹50 lakh, and section 36(1) now names e-commerce platforms, online marketplaces and electronic service providers in its own text.
Both changes come from the Jan Vishwas Amendment of Provisions Act, 2026, Act 8 of 2026. The India Code text of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 carries the footnote against each amended section: substituted by Act 8 of 2026, section 2 and Schedule, with effect from 01-05-2026.
| Offence | Section | First offence | Second offence | Third or subsequent |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-packaged commodity not conforming to its declarations, which includes selling above MRP | 36(1) | Improvement notice | Penalty up to ₹5 lakh | Not less than ₹25 lakh, up to ₹50 lakh |
| Error in net quantity, that is a short-weight or under-measure pack | 36(2) | Fine not less than ₹10,000, up to ₹1 lakh | Fine up to ₹5 lakh | Fine up to ₹50 lakh, or imprisonment up to 1 year, or both |
| Using or keeping for use a non-standard weight or measure | 25 | Improvement notice | Penalty up to ₹1 lakh | Fine not less than ₹2 lakh |
The contrast between the two halves of section 36 is the point. A declaration breach, which is what above-MRP selling is, now begins with a notice. A short-weight breach under section 36(2) still begins with a fine of at least ₹10,000. Selling you a pack marked 1 kg that holds 920 grams was, and remains, a fine from the very first offence.
The old penalty figures are gone. Anything that still tells you a first above-MRP offence carries a fine of up to ₹25,000, a second up to ₹50,000, and a subsequent one ₹50,000 to ₹1,00,000 with imprisonment up to a year, is quoting the pre-1 May 2026 text of section 36(1). That text was substituted.
This is the more consequential half. The amended section 36(1) reaches whoever manufactures, packs, imports, sells, distributes, delivers or otherwise transfers, offers, exposes or possesses for sale, or causes any of those to be done, any pre-packaged commodity which does not conform to the declarations on the package, including through digital modes of sale such as e-commerce platforms, online market places or any other digital or electronic means including electronic service providers facilitating such sales.
The Explanation to section 36(1) does not leave those words to argument. It says that for the purposes of that sub-section, the expressions e-commerce and electronic service provider have the same meaning as in clauses (16) and (17) of section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, Act 35 of 2019.
So a mis-declared listing is no longer only the seller's problem. The statute now describes the digital channel and the service provider facilitating the sale in the operative sentence.
Do not read improvement notice as let off. The amendment inserted a real mechanism, as new sub-sections (6) and (7) of section 15, the inspection and seizure section.
Under section 15(6), where the Director, Controller or a legal metrology officer has reasonable ground for believing a person has failed to comply, the improvement notice served on that person must do four things:
Section 15(7) supplies the teeth. If the person fails to comply with the improvement notice, his registration or approval shall be suspended or revoked. The proviso requires the authorised officer to give an opportunity of being heard first, and to record reasons in writing.
A notice that does not do all four things in section 15(6) is defective on the face of the statute. That is worth knowing whether you received one or are complaining that one was ignored.
A new definition came with it. The same amendment inserted clause (ea) into section 2, defining improvement notice as an improvement notice issued under this Act, with the footnote recording insertion by Act 8 of 2026, section 2 and Schedule, with effect from 01-05-2026. Section 15(6) also changed what a lawful search looks like: new section 15(5) deems an inspection, search or seizure carried out under a general or special order, instruction or written authorisation of the Director or Controller to have been made under a lawful warrant.
Two offences, one delivery. An illustration, not a real case.
A shopper buys a 1 kg pack of atta from an online marketplace in July 2026. The label declares 1 kg. The delivered pack weighs 900 grams, and the price charged is above the MRP printed on it.
Those are two different offences with two different consequences after the amendment.
The above-MRP charge is a failure of the pack to conform to its declarations, so it falls in section 36(1). On a first offence the response is an improvement notice under section 15(6), not a fine. The listing being on a marketplace is no longer an argument against coverage, because section 36(1) now names e-commerce platforms and electronic service providers facilitating the sale.
The 100 gram shortfall is an error in net quantity, so it falls in section 36(2), which the amendment left as a fine regime. That carries a fine of not less than ₹10,000 and up to ₹1 lakh even on a first offence.
If the seller ignores the improvement notice, section 15(7) allows suspension or revocation of registration or approval, after a hearing and for reasons recorded in writing.
The complaint route itself has not changed: you go to the Controller or an Inspector of Legal Metrology in your State. Our step-by-step guide to that is at filing a legal metrology complaint for wrong weight or above-MRP selling.
What has changed is what you should ask the department afterwards. Under the new regime the first response to a declaration breach is a notice, so the meaningful question is whether that notice was issued, what it required, and what happened when the deadline passed.
To, The Public Information Officer, Office of the Controller of Legal Metrology, Department of Legal Metrology / Weights and Measures, [State] . Subject: Information under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 regarding improvement notices under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009. Sir/Madam, Under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, please provide: 1. The number of improvement notices issued under Section 15(6) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 in this State since 1 May 2026, district-wise. 2. In respect of my complaint number [number] dated [date] against [name of seller or platform] , a copy of the improvement notice issued under Section 15(6), or a written statement that no notice was issued. 3. The number of cases in which registration or approval was suspended or revoked under Section 15(7) for failure to comply with an improvement notice, since 1 May 2026. 4. The number of penalties imposed under Section 36(1) for a second offence, and under Section 36(1) for a third or subsequent offence, since 1 May 2026, with the total amount imposed and recovered. 5. The number of cases registered since 1 May 2026 against e-commerce platforms, online market places or electronic service providers under Section 36(1), and the action taken in each. 6. The number of penalties imposed under Section 36(2) for error in net quantity since 1 May 2026. I enclose the prescribed application fee of ₹10. If any part of this information is held by another public authority, please transfer that part under Section 6(3) within five days. Please supply the information within the period fixed by Section 7(1). Yours faithfully, [Name] [Full postal address] [Date]
Point 5 is the one nobody asks, and it is the test of whether the new words in section 36(1) are being used at all. Build the application with the AI RTI Drafter, fix the reply date with the Timeline Tracker, and check a thin reply with the PIO Reply Checker.
1 May 2026. Each amended provision in the India Code text of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 carries a footnote recording substitution by Act 8 of 2026, section 2 and Schedule, with effect from 01-05-2026.
For a genuinely first offence, the response under section 36(1) is an improvement notice. But a second offence carries a penalty up to ₹5 lakh, and a third or subsequent offence carries not less than ₹25 lakh and up to ₹50 lakh. The ceiling went up sharply while the entry point softened.
Yes, in terms. Section 36(1) now includes sale through digital modes such as e-commerce platforms, online market places or any other digital or electronic means, including electronic service providers facilitating such sales. The Explanation borrows the definitions of e-commerce and electronic service provider from clauses (16) and (17) of section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Four things, under section 15(6): the grounds for believing there was a failure to comply, the matters constituting that failure, the measures the person must take to secure compliance, and a requirement to take them within a reasonable period specified in the notice.
Section 15(7) says the registration or approval shall be suspended or revoked. The proviso requires the authorised officer to give an opportunity of being heard and to record reasons in writing before doing so.
No. Section 36(2) still punishes an error in net quantity with a fine of not less than ₹10,000 and up to ₹1 lakh for a first offence, up to ₹5 lakh for a second, and up to ₹50 lakh or imprisonment up to one year or both for a third or subsequent offence.
Reviewed by Dr. Shrawan Kumar Pathak. Last verified against the India Code text of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 on 30 August 2026.