By Generations Sans Tabac (GST)

India has reaffirmed its ban on e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products, resisting ongoing lobbying efforts by the tobacco and nicotine industry to reopen the market. The decision highlights the country’s continued commitment to protecting public health policies from commercial and vested interests, in line with Article 5.3 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC).

The ban, first introduced in 2019, prohibits the production, import, sale, and advertisement of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) and heated tobacco products (HTPs). Despite sustained advocacy by industry actors—including major transnational tobacco companies seeking to position these products as “harm reduction” alternatives—Indian authorities have maintained a precautionary approach.

Recent reports indicate that industry representatives have intensified engagement with policymakers, aiming to influence regulatory discussions and promote market access for novel nicotine products. These efforts reflect broader global strategies by the tobacco industry to rebrand and re-enter markets through emerging products, often framing them as part of public health solutions.

India’s decision to uphold the ban demonstrates a clear application of Article 5.3, which requires Parties to protect public health policies from tobacco industry interference. By maintaining its position despite external pressure, India provides an important example of policy coherence and resistance to industry influence in the context of rapidly evolving nicotine product landscapes.

This case also underscores the importance for Parties to remain vigilant regarding industry tactics, particularly those that seek to normalize engagement through narratives of innovation or harm reduction. Strong implementation of Article 5.3 measures—including limiting interactions with industry actors and ensuring transparency—remains essential.

As countries continue to navigate regulatory approaches to emerging nicotine and tobacco products, India’s experience offers a valuable example of prioritizing public health over commercial interests.