{"id":153,"date":"2023-02-10T08:25:25","date_gmt":"2023-02-10T08:25:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/zakra-digital-diary.sites.qsandbox.com\/?p=153"},"modified":"2025-03-29T13:53:39","modified_gmt":"2025-03-29T13:53:39","slug":"ese-lightning-protection","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.nfees.org\/blog\/ese-lightning-protection\/","title":{"rendered":"ESE Lightning protection and its legality in India"},"content":{"rendered":"
\r\n
\r\n
\r\n
\r\n
\r\n
\r\n
\r\n
\r\n

During the last days of December 2022, M\/S Lightning Protection India Association (LPIA) circulated documents under the name \u201cKarnataka High Court rules in favor of Lightning Protection India Association (LPIA)\u201d. This blog explains the facts behind the case and the legal validity of ESE Lightning Protection in India.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/article>\r\n<\/div>\r\n

\u00a0<\/p>\r\n

1. ESE, Court case and Claims by LPIA.<\/u><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n

Sub: High court case, NBC-2016 & ESE Lightning Protection System<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Ref: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ORDER DATED 23RD NOVEMBER 2022 (LPIA VS UOI -BIS) & the subsequent claims by ESE suppliers.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

a. Lines<\/strong> from<\/strong> court<\/strong> order: <\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n

\u201cthis<\/em> Court<\/em> is<\/em> of<\/em> the<\/em> view<\/em> that<\/em> the<\/em> specific<\/em> stand<\/em> of<\/em> the<\/em> Respondent-Bureau<\/em> with<\/em> which<\/em> the<\/em> 1st<\/em> Respondent<\/em> –<\/em> Central<\/em> Government<\/em> is<\/em> in<\/em> agreement,<\/em> does<\/em> substantiate<\/em> that<\/em> the<\/em> subject<\/em> Code<\/em> and<\/em> its<\/em> provisions<\/em> including<\/em> what<\/em> is<\/em> impugned<\/em> herein<\/em> do<\/em> not<\/em> have<\/em> proprio<\/em> vigor<\/em> enforceability,<\/em> the<\/em> same<\/em> being<\/em> ‘a<\/em> voluntary<\/em> model<\/em> code’<\/em> and<\/em> a<\/em> ‘guiding<\/em> document’<\/em> to<\/em> use<\/em> the<\/em> terminology<\/em> of<\/em> the<\/em> 2nd<\/em> Respondent.<\/em> Therefore,<\/em> the<\/em> Petitioner<\/em> need<\/em> not<\/em> have<\/em> the<\/em> apprehension<\/em> that<\/em> in<\/em> the<\/em> run<\/em> of<\/em> its<\/em> business,<\/em> it<\/em> has<\/em> to<\/em> comply<\/em> with<\/em> what<\/em> is<\/em> recommended<\/em> in<\/em> the<\/em> Code<\/em> per<\/em> se<\/em> and<\/em> therefore,<\/em> even<\/em> if<\/em> there<\/em> is<\/em> any<\/em> contravention<\/em> thereof,<\/em> it<\/em> shall<\/em> not<\/em> be<\/em> actionable<\/em> against<\/em> the<\/em> Petitioner,<\/em> till<\/em> after<\/em> the<\/em> same<\/em> is<\/em> incorporated<\/em> in<\/em> some<\/em> statutory<\/em> instrument<\/em> to<\/em> make<\/em> it<\/em> a<\/em> binding<\/em> rule<\/em> of<\/em> conduct\u201d<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ORDER DATED 23RD NOVEMBER 2022 \u2013 LPIA VS UOI – BIS-c[1]<\/a><\/div>\r\n
\r\n

b. BIS undertaking to court<\/strong>.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

\u201cNational<\/em> Building<\/em> Code<\/em> of<\/em> India<\/em> 2016<\/em> (NBC<\/em> 2016)<\/em> is<\/em> a<\/em> voluntary<\/em> model<\/em> code<\/em> which<\/em> may<\/em> be<\/em> considered<\/em> for<\/em> utilization\/suitable<\/em> adoption<\/em> by<\/em> concerned<\/em> authorities<\/em> (such<\/em> as<\/em> municipal<\/em> administrations,<\/em> construction<\/em> departments,<\/em> etc)<\/em> and<\/em> others<\/em> concerned.<\/em> The<\/em> NBC<\/em> is<\/em> a<\/em> guiding<\/em> document<\/em> formulated<\/em> by<\/em> the<\/em> concerned<\/em> technical<\/em> committee<\/em> based<\/em> on<\/em> scientific<\/em> and<\/em> technical<\/em> know-how.<\/em> It<\/em> lays<\/em> down<\/em> a<\/em> set<\/em> of<\/em> minimum<\/em> provisions<\/em> designed<\/em> to<\/em> protect<\/em> the<\/em> safety<\/em> of<\/em> the<\/em> public<\/em> with<\/em> regard<\/em> to<\/em> structural<\/em> sufficiency,<\/em> fire<\/em> hazards<\/em> and<\/em> health<\/em> aspects<\/em> of<\/em> buildings.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\r\n

Compliance<\/em> to<\/em> the<\/em> provisions<\/em> of<\/em> NBC<\/em> 2016<\/em> becomes<\/em> binding<\/em> only<\/em> if<\/em> the<\/em> code<\/em> is<\/em> specified\/referred<\/em> in<\/em> a<\/em> regulatory<\/em> document<\/em> or<\/em> in<\/em> an<\/em> agreement<\/em> between<\/em> two<\/em> contracting<\/em> parties.<\/em> The<\/em> implementation<\/em> of<\/em> the<\/em> NBC<\/em> is<\/em> within<\/em> the<\/em> purview<\/em> of<\/em> the<\/em> body<\/em> adopting<\/em> the<\/em> Code.<\/em> For<\/em> example,<\/em> if<\/em> a<\/em> local<\/em> body\/municipality<\/em> adopts<\/em> the<\/em> NBC<\/em> as<\/em> a<\/em> mandatory<\/em> requirement<\/em> for<\/em> construction<\/em> of<\/em> buildings<\/em> in<\/em> the<\/em> area<\/em> within<\/em> its<\/em> jurisdiction<\/em> and<\/em> there<\/em> is<\/em> a<\/em> violation<\/em> of<\/em> the<\/em> code,<\/em> it<\/em> is<\/em> the<\/em> municipality<\/em> that<\/em> has<\/em> to<\/em> initiate<\/em> penal<\/em> action<\/em> against<\/em> the<\/em> offender\u201d. <\/em><\/span><\/p>\r\n

Also,<\/em> Rule<\/em> 24<\/em> of<\/em> the<\/em> BIS<\/em> Rules,<\/em> 2018,<\/em> states,<\/em> “Indian<\/em> Standards<\/em> to<\/em> be<\/em> binding<\/em> in<\/em> certain<\/em> cases.<\/em> –<\/em> (1)<\/em> Save<\/em> as<\/em> otherwise<\/em> provided<\/em> in<\/em> sub-rule<\/em> (2),<\/em> the<\/em> Indian<\/em> Standards<\/em> are<\/em> voluntary<\/em> and<\/em> their<\/em> implementation<\/em> depends<\/em> on<\/em> adoption<\/em> by<\/em> concerned<\/em> parties.<\/em> (2)<\/em> An<\/em> Indian<\/em> Standard<\/em> shall<\/em> be<\/em> binding<\/em> if<\/em> it<\/em> is<\/em> stipulated<\/em> in<\/em> a<\/em> contract<\/em> or<\/em> referred<\/em> to<\/em> in<\/em> a<\/em> legislation<\/em> or<\/em> made<\/em> mandatory<\/em> by<\/em> specific<\/em> orders<\/em> of<\/em> the<\/em> Government”.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\r\n<\/div>\r\n

BIS UNDERTAKING TO KARNATAKA HIGH COURT SUBMITTED ON JUDGEMENT DATE 23 NOV 2022 WP129921-c[1]<\/a><\/div>\r\n
\r\n

c. Conclusion<\/strong> of<\/strong> points<\/strong> a<\/strong> and<\/strong> b<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n

From the undertaking it is clear that BIS standards are voluntary. Standards are voluntary, not only in India, but globally. Standards becomes mandatory if they are stipulated in a contract or referred in a legislation or made mandatory by specific orders of the Government.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

a. NBC<\/strong> in<\/strong> regulatory<\/strong> documents.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n

NBC-2016 is already accepted by several state\/central government agencies\/departments as a requirement, thus compliance to NBC-2016 become mandatory in the respective area\/legislations.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

b. NBC<\/strong> in<\/strong> agreement<\/strong> between<\/strong> two<\/strong> contracting<\/strong> parties.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n

Indian Standard shall be binding if it is stipulated in a contract means, in a tender specification or in a purchase order or in any contract documents if NBC is referred, then it is mandatory.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

E.g. In a municipality or in a state where NBC is not made mandatory and is not referred in any contractual agreements while constructing a building, requirement as per NBC is not mandatory. This also means the builder, the owner, the industry etc, shall not claim that the building is as per NBC-2016.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Conclusion:<\/em><\/strong> It<\/em><\/strong> is<\/em><\/strong> clear<\/em><\/strong> from<\/em><\/strong> the<\/em><\/strong> court<\/em><\/strong> order<\/em><\/strong> that<\/em><\/strong> the<\/em><\/strong> petition<\/em><\/strong> filled<\/em><\/strong> by<\/em><\/strong> LPIA<\/em><\/strong> is<\/em><\/strong> disposed<\/em><\/strong> of<\/em><\/strong> without<\/em><\/strong> any<\/em><\/strong> action.<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n

\u00a0<\/p>\r\n

2.<\/strong> National<\/u><\/strong> <\/u>safety<\/u><\/strong> <\/u>regulations<\/u><\/strong> <\/u>and<\/u><\/strong> <\/u>validity<\/u><\/strong> <\/u>of<\/u><\/strong> <\/u>ESE<\/u><\/strong> <\/u>as<\/u><\/strong> <\/u>per<\/u><\/strong> <\/u>the<\/u><\/strong> <\/u>regulation<\/u>.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n

Safety<\/strong> regulations<\/strong> of<\/strong> Government<\/strong> of<\/strong> India.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n

Based on act 53 of The Electricity Act 2003, Electricity safety regulations called as Central<\/strong> Electricity<\/strong> Authority<\/strong> (Measures<\/strong> relating<\/strong> to<\/strong> Safety<\/strong> and<\/strong> Electric<\/strong> Supply)<\/strong> Regulations<\/strong> 2010<\/strong>, are made. The following regulations are to be read to understand the subject.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Measures relating to safety and electric supply regulations 2010<\/a><\/p>\r\n

Regulation<\/u><\/em><\/strong> <\/u>12<\/u><\/em><\/strong> <\/u>(3)<\/u><\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n

The<\/em> material<\/em> and<\/em> apparatus<\/em> used<\/em> shall<\/em> conform<\/em> to<\/em> the<\/em> relevant<\/em> specifications<\/em> of<\/em> The<\/em> Bureau<\/em> of<\/em> Indian<\/em> Standards<\/em> or<\/em> International<\/em> Electrotechnical<\/em> Commission<\/em> where<\/em> such<\/em> specifications<\/em> have<\/em> already<\/em> been<\/em> laid<\/em> down.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\r\n

Conclusion:<\/u><\/em><\/strong> Both<\/em><\/strong> IS\/IEC<\/em><\/strong> 62305<\/em><\/strong> or<\/em><\/strong> IEC<\/em><\/strong> 62305<\/em><\/strong> did<\/em><\/strong> not<\/em><\/strong> accept<\/em><\/strong> the<\/em><\/strong> claims<\/em><\/strong> of<\/em><\/strong> enhanced<\/em><\/strong> protection<\/em><\/strong> radius<\/em><\/strong> of<\/em><\/strong> ESE.<\/em><\/strong> It<\/em><\/strong> is<\/em><\/strong> clear<\/em><\/strong> from<\/em><\/strong> the<\/em><\/strong> above<\/em><\/strong> regulation<\/em><\/strong> (12(3))<\/em><\/strong> that<\/em><\/strong> using<\/em><\/strong> ESE<\/em><\/strong> in<\/em><\/strong> India<\/em><\/strong> is<\/em><\/strong> a<\/em><\/strong> violation<\/em><\/strong> of<\/em><\/strong> the<\/em><\/strong> safety<\/em><\/strong> regulation.<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n

Regulation<\/u><\/em><\/strong> <\/u>37<\/u><\/em><\/strong> <\/u>(vii)<\/u><\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n

If<\/em> at<\/em> any<\/em> time<\/em> after<\/em> connecting<\/em> the<\/em> supply,<\/em> the<\/em> supplier<\/em> is<\/em> satisfied<\/em> that<\/em> any<\/em> provision<\/em> of<\/em> these<\/em> regulations<\/em> are<\/em> not<\/em> being<\/em> observed<\/em> he<\/em> shall<\/em> give<\/em> notice<\/em> of<\/em> the<\/em> same<\/em> in<\/em> writing<\/em> to<\/em> the<\/em> consumer<\/em> and<\/em> the<\/em> Electrical<\/em> Inspector,<\/em> specifying<\/em> how<\/em> the<\/em> provisions<\/em> have<\/em> not<\/em> been<\/em> observed<\/em> and<\/em> to<\/em> rectify<\/em> such<\/em> defects<\/em> in<\/em> a<\/em> reasonable<\/em> time<\/em> and<\/em> if<\/em> the<\/em> consumer<\/em> fails<\/em> to<\/em> rectify<\/em> such<\/em> detects<\/em> pointed<\/em> out,<\/em> he<\/em> may<\/em> discontinue<\/em> the<\/em> supply<\/em> after<\/em> giving<\/em> the<\/em> consumer<\/em> a<\/em> reasonable<\/em> opportunity<\/em> of<\/em> being<\/em> heard<\/em> and<\/em> recording<\/em> reasons<\/em> in<\/em> writing<\/em> and<\/em> the,<\/em> supply<\/em> shall<\/em> be<\/em> discontinued<\/em> only<\/em> on<\/em> written<\/em> orders<\/em> of<\/em> an<\/em> officer<\/em> duly<\/em> notified<\/em> the<\/em> supplier<\/em> in<\/em> this<\/em> behalf<\/em> and<\/em> shall<\/em> be<\/em> restored<\/em> with<\/em> all<\/em> possible<\/em> speed<\/em> after<\/em> such<\/em> defects<\/em> are<\/em> rectified<\/em> by<\/em> the<\/em> consumer<\/em> to<\/em> the<\/em> satisfaction<\/em> of<\/em> the<\/em> supplier.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\r\n

Conclusion:<\/u><\/em><\/strong> It<\/em><\/strong> is<\/em><\/strong> clear<\/em><\/strong> from<\/em><\/strong> the<\/em><\/strong> above<\/em><\/strong> regulation<\/em><\/strong> (37(7))<\/em><\/strong> that<\/em><\/strong> the<\/em><\/strong> supplier<\/em><\/strong> shall<\/em><\/strong> disconnect<\/em><\/strong> the<\/em><\/strong> supply<\/em><\/strong> in<\/em><\/strong> case<\/em><\/strong> of<\/em><\/strong> violation<\/em><\/strong> of<\/em><\/strong> regulation<\/em><\/strong> is<\/em><\/strong> found.<\/em><\/strong> (e.g.<\/em><\/strong> SOLAR<\/em><\/strong> PV<\/em><\/strong> with<\/em><\/strong> ESE<\/em><\/strong> lightning<\/em><\/strong> protection<\/em><\/strong> shall<\/em><\/strong> be<\/em><\/strong> disconnected<\/em><\/strong> from<\/em><\/strong> the<\/em><\/strong> grid)<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n

Note: State ERC or Electrical Inspectorate shall be informed about this violation to initiate appropriate action. Readers are also requested to understand the requirements of PART XIV OFFENCES AND PENALTIES of The Electricity Act 2003.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

\u00a0<\/div>\r\n
\r\n

3.<\/strong>ESE\u2019s <\/u><\/strong>and <\/u><\/strong>CSE\u2019s <\/u><\/strong>installed <\/u><\/strong>in <\/u><\/strong>India<\/u>.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n

ESE sold in India are with one rod claiming up to 100-meter radius of protection, one down conductor and one or two earth pits. The ESE vendors claim this as per NFC 17-102. Refer the picture in annexure -1 (which is fig 1 under clause 1.4.3 of NF C 17-102, Components of LPS). <\/span><\/p>\r\n

\"\"<\/p>\r\n

Fig: Typical ESE promotions in India with one down conductor and one earth electrode.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<\/div>\r\n

\"\"<\/p>\r\n

\r\n

Fig: Actual ESE installation as per NFC 17-102, (Which is not practiced in India)<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Conclusion:<\/u><\/em><\/strong> ESE\u2019s sold in India are<\/strong> not<\/strong> based<\/strong> on NFC 17-102 (French code) but are<\/strong> based<\/strong> on<\/strong> illogical<\/strong> claims<\/strong> and<\/strong> hogwash<\/strong>, with an aim to make financial benefit. In simple terms, \u201cESE<\/strong> installations<\/strong> in<\/strong> India<\/strong> with<\/strong> one<\/strong> down<\/strong> conductor<\/strong> and<\/strong> earth<\/strong> electrode<\/strong> are<\/strong> mere<\/strong> business,<\/strong> utilizing<\/strong> the<\/strong> unawareness<\/strong> of<\/strong> the<\/strong> user<\/strong>\u201d. <\/span><\/p>\r\n

NBC-2016<\/strong> has<\/strong> not<\/strong> accepted<\/strong> ESE\/DAS\/CSE<\/strong> lightning<\/strong> protection<\/strong> and<\/strong> recommended<\/strong> not<\/strong> to<\/strong> use<\/strong> it.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n

\u00a0<\/p>\r\n

4. Acceptance by ESE manufacturer, that consultants in India do not ensure correct installation.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n

During the fifth meeting of CED 43: P13, panel for electrical installations dt 31 May 2018, the ESE manufacturers were invited to present their comments about NBC-2016 to the committee. Representative from Indelec SA (France and India) and LPI (Australia and India) presented ESE technology in India. The following points from minutes of meeting to be noted.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Minutes of Meeting at BIS on 2018<\/a><\/p>\r\n

\u201cShri<\/em> Gopa<\/em> Kumar<\/em> however<\/em> informed<\/em> that<\/em> in<\/em> most<\/em> of<\/em> the<\/em> installations<\/em> (to<\/em> the<\/em> order<\/em> of<\/em> 99<\/em> percent),<\/em> provisions<\/em> in<\/em> the<\/em> NFC<\/em> 17-102<\/em> are<\/em> also<\/em> not<\/em> being<\/em> followed.<\/em> Shri<\/em> Nair<\/em> argued<\/em> that<\/em> it<\/em> was<\/em> the<\/em> responsibility<\/em> of<\/em> the<\/em> consultant<\/em> to<\/em> ensure<\/em> the<\/em> correct<\/em> installation<\/em> of<\/em> any<\/em> technology\u201d. <\/em><\/span>Shri<\/em> Franco<\/em> (Indelec<\/em> SA)<\/em> agreed<\/em> that<\/em> the<\/em> system<\/em> does<\/em> not<\/em> provide<\/em> guidelines<\/em> of<\/em> side<\/em> flash<\/em> and<\/em> mentioned<\/em> that<\/em> this<\/em> was<\/em> not<\/em> an<\/em> important<\/em> aspect<\/em> as<\/em> side<\/em> flash\/strike<\/em> are<\/em> very<\/em> rare.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\r\n

The above comment from Shri Vinod Nair of M\/S INDELEC SA shows that the ESE installations in India are not following NFC 17-102 and cannot protect against side flash. According to Shri. Vinod Nair, the consultants are not carrying out their responsibility properly and hence the company INDELEC SA is not responsible for wrong installation (to the tune of 99%).<\/span><\/p>\r\n

More information on nonstandard LPS by ESE can be found at https:\/\/www.vidyutsuraksha.com\/post\/ese-lightning-protection-and-its-legality-in-india<\/a><\/span><\/p>\r\n

 <\/p>\r\n

Written by<\/span><\/p>\r\n

S. Gopa Kumar<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Member<\/span><\/p>\r\n

IEC TC64: MT 3, MT 12, MT 40, MT 41, PT 60364-8-3, WG 43<\/span><\/p>\r\n

TC81: ahG 19, MT 3, MT 14, MT 21, WG 18<\/span><\/p>\r\n

SC 37 A: WG3 & WG05<\/span><\/p>\r\n

BIS National Building Code-2016 (electrical committee), <\/span><\/p>\r\n

ETD 20 (NEC, IS732, IS3043, IS\/IEC 62305), ETD 30 & ETD50<\/span><\/p>\r\n

The author is also the respondent no 4, of the case referred in Sl no 1 (petition filed by LPIA)<\/em><\/span><\/p>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n

<\/span> 4,793<\/span> Views<\/span><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Auctor leo et eget porta aliquet mi viverra. Mattis non pellentesque lectus mattis duis a nibh feugiat aliquet. Pulvinar tristique massa id arcu molestie. Amet, diam sed pellentesque id placerat. …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1607,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[10],"class_list":["post-153","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-lightning-protection","tag-lightning"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nfees.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/153","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nfees.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nfees.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nfees.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nfees.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=153"}],"version-history":[{"count":14,"href":"https:\/\/www.nfees.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/153\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1781,"href":"https:\/\/www.nfees.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/153\/revisions\/1781"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nfees.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1607"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nfees.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=153"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nfees.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=153"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nfees.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=153"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}