NBC Diluted, IS 1893:2025 (Parts 1 & 5) Withdrawn: A Wake‑Up Call for All Stakeholders

No one can deny or undermine the importance of standards in civil engineering. They provide minimum benchmarks that should be followed while planning, designing, constructing, maintaining, retrofitting, demolishing, or recycling any civil engineering structure.

In India, the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) is the national standards body established under the BIS Act, 2016, to promote the harmonious development of activities related to standardization, marking, and quality certification of goods. One of the important roles of BIS is to develop and publish standards for products, processes, and services. BIS replaced ISI in 1987. Its objective is also to provide thrust to standardization and quality control for the growth and development of industry and to meet consumer needs. BIS is an autonomous statutory body under the administrative control of the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution. The Civil Engineering Division (CED) of BIS has thirty-eight technical committees with around one thousand members contributing to them.

You might be wondering why I am writing so much about BIS, especially when this information is in the public domain and most of us have a good understanding of it. In fact, I have been associated with BIS for around twenty-five years, contributing to various committees. I have always felt proud to be part of these committees. I have generally admired the way standards are developed and revised—it is quite democratic, consultative, and consensus-based. However, the recent withdrawal of IS 1893:2025 (Part 1 & 5) and the fragmentation and dilution of the National Building Code of India (NBC) led me to introspect and write this blog post.

Both IS 1893 and NBC are very important standards used by civil/structural engineers and other stakeholders in one way or the other. Withdrawal of IS 1893:2025 means that, for the time being, IS 1893:2016 shall be applicable. The process of NBC dilution is still underway, which means NBC 2016 remains applicable for now. However, a diluted version is likely to replace NBC 2016 within the next few months. I wrote two blog posts on the dilution of NBC in the past few months. You may read them at the following links:

https://www.manojmittal.in/post/national-building-code-of-india-gets-seismic-jolthttps://www.manojmittal.in/post/correct-but-not-quite-right-the-curious-case-of-the-nbc-s-status

Directions for the withdrawal of IS 1893:2025 part 1 & 5 and dilution of NBC came from the Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India under its broad deregulation and reforms push. BIS generally agreed to it without much spirited resistance. Broadly, the reasons provided by the government were that user ministries were not consulted, compliance requirements were rigorous, provisions were increasing costs exorbitantly, NBC provisions were too prescriptive, and in many cases encroached upon the domain of states. The matter was referred to the respective committees for so-called reconsideration.

Both incidents are unprecedented and have evoked strong reactions from stakeholders—but of very different nature. While the dilution of NBC was resisted tooth and nail by practicing civil engineers, government engineers largely kept mum, as expected. NBC committee members were generally against such modifications but still toed the government line. In contrast, the withdrawal of IS 1893:2025 was generally welcomed by practicing civil/structural engineers, government departments, and some committee members/academicians, while a few members felt otherwise. But generally, committee members felt bad about such developments. It has been an entirely new kind of experience for me. Incidentally, I am associated with both committees.

In this piece, I am not going into the merits or demerits of the arguments or reasons for such actions, as a lot has already been written, discussed, and debated on various platforms. I simply want to analyze what led to this situation. Is it likely to happen again? Is BIS taking the right corrective steps? What should we, as civil/structural engineers, do in this direction? Are we also to be blamed? Is it the committee’s fault? Did the government do the right thing? Do BIS processes need a relook?

The bottom line is that the government has the ultimate authority to act if, in its considered opinion, a standard being published or already published is not in the larger interest of citizens or aligned with national priorities. They may be correct in their decision—but were they right? It is also important how the government arrived at this decision. Did they listen to all stakeholders? Were they transparent in their approach? In my opinion, no. They did not adequately consider the viewpoints of practicing engineers and committee members. Engineers were not given sufficient time, and the government’s approach appeared somewhat biased and harsh. It seemed that decisions were taken hastily, possibly based on inputs from certain individuals, trade associations, and/or influential lobbies. They could have also considered and discussed alternative viewpoints. Furthermore, there could have been other ways for the government to intervene. But yes, they had the right to act.

It is also beyond my comprehension why the technical committees failed to convincingly present their viewpoints to the government. Even more surprising is why they agreed to sweeping changes in the NBC, which they themselves had developed and refined based on their expertise and stakeholder feedback. There was no apparent legal or administrative compulsion for them to concede if they were not convinced with the government's view. This suggests either a lack of courage or conviction. Either way, it raises concerns about their suitability to serve as members of such important committees. I considered quitting several times.

Regarding IS 1893:2025, the committee members were convinced about the technical content and reasoning of the standard but have failed to adequately assess cost implications and ground realities related to implementation. Is it not the responsibility of committees to address such aspects? Ultimately, what is the use of any standard if it is not user-friendly? Why should project owners feel compelled to avoid standards that are meant for their benefit? Committee members must seriously reflect on this. While the government acted, committees are equally at fault including me being a member.

BIS takes pride in its standard-making process being democratic, consultative, and consensus-based. But is this truly the case? Code-making is voluntary work. Committee members contribute alongside their professional commitments, and the frequency and timing of meetings often clash with their work. This is particularly true for those working in individual capacity or as independent professionals. Meetings are decided by BIS in consultation with chairpersons of the committees who are mostly government officials or retired government officials. It would be better if the next meeting date is decided by the committees itself. Structured consultations with stakeholders—before, during, and after drafting—are not commonly practiced. Inviting comments via email is not sufficient, as such communications often go unnoticed. The urgency to publish standards further aggravates the situation.

There is also pressure from BIS to publish standards, with committees being ranked and awarded based on output and performance. Chairpersons and conveners should be individuals who understand ground realities and possess the ability to build consensus, rather than merely pushing timelines. BIS must engage with committee members with due respect and dignity, recognizing their significant voluntary contribution, instead of focusing narrowly on attendance, age, or procedural metrics. A downward trend in this regard is noticeable and may discourage experienced members from participating. BIS must remember that wisdom often comes with experience. In short, BIS needs to introspect if it wishes to restore its reputation, which has been dented by these recent developments.

I have a strong feeling that such incidents may recur if meaningful corrective steps are not taken. This concern extends beyond the Civil Engineering Division (CED) as well. The quality of standards, viewed from a broader perspective, should remain the ultimate focus of any committee. Practicing engineers must be more proactive in participating in committees and submitting timely comments. Why are engineers’ happy with the withdrawal of IS 1893:2025? Should these concerns not have been raised earlier? What were professional institutions doing earlier? Should they not have organized brainstorming sessions on draft standards and consolidated feedback for BIS? It is indeed surprising that the technical community is now raising questions about the adoption of Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA), its accuracy and methodology, and the return period–zone factor matrix after the code was published and notified. Should this not have been addressed earlier? Were government departments and ministries unaware? Many of them were, in fact, part of the committees. However, this may now be seen as a blessing in disguise and an opportunity to consider all missed aspects.

These two incidents—the dilution and fragmentation of NBC and the withdrawal of IS 1893 (Part 1 & 5):2025—have exposed structural weaknesses and fault lines in the entire process. This is a systemic issue and must be urgently and adequately retrofitted, with zero probability of recurrence.

MANOJ MITTAL- March 28, 2026 |NOIDA

Images are AI generated

---

Disclaimer: The views expressed are solely those of the author and do not reflect those of any affiliated organization. This post is not intended to criticize individuals, but to highlight concerns for improving the process in the larger interest of nation-building.

© This blog post is the intellectual property of MANOJ MITTAL. Unauthorized use or reproduction is prohibited.