Posted on

E-Cigarette and ENDS ban in India: Analysis of laws, consequences and challenges

Last updated: June, 2019

May 31 is observed every year as the World Anti-Tobacco Day. On May 31 of 2019, The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), the apex bio-medical research body of the Indian government, issued a  formal recommendation to ban the sale of e-cigarettes and electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) through-out India. The ICMR recommendation has come at an opportune time since, very recently, the Delhi High Court has stayed the operation of a Central Government circular imploring various Indian States to ban ENDS. 

In this post, we have analyzed the current regulatory framework for the regulation of e-cigarettes and ENDS (hereinafter referred collectively as ENDS for convenience) to evaluate its scope and limitations, as well as decode the method of current regulation of ENDS under Indian law. We have also highlighted the consequences of violation of the ban, if any.

Legal and regulatory framework

Under Indian law, there are five distinct regulatory buckets in which ENDS may fall:

  1. ENDS as a combination product of drug and medical device
  2. ENDS as a tobacco product
  3. ENDS (nicotine) as food
  4. ENDS (nicotine) as a poison
  5. ENDS (nicotine) as an insecticide

We will deal with each regulatory bucket in the paragraphs below.

Combination of Drug and Medical Device

Preparations of nicotine are regulated as a drug in India. In fact, the sale of gums and lozenges containing more than 2 mg of nicotine requires a retail drug license.

As per a survey carried by the author, most States in India have regulated ENDS as a drug (since substances and devices are deemed to be drugs in India). Under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and its rules (“Drug Laws“), a license is required to import, manufacture and sell drugs. Wherever State Governments have banned ENDS, they have done so by refusing to issue a license to undertake any commercial activity related to ENDS on the grounds that ENDS is not approved for sale as a drug. This position has been endorsed by the Central Government as well, who had released in advisory for all States in India to that effect in August 2018.

Import, manufacture or sale of ENDS in violation of Drug Laws could result in confiscation, fine and imprisonment for the company involved as well as the person in charge of the operations of the company. 

However, two separate Delhi High Court orders have raised serious questions over the legal basis of the ban on ENDS. In Piush Ahulawalia v. Union of India, the Delhi High Court clarified that the Central Government’s advisory was not binding, and therefore the State Governments were free to chart their own course in terms of banning (or not banning) ENDS. In Focus Brand Trading India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr  v. DGHS and Ors., the Delhi High Court went a step ahead and questioned whether ENDS could be regulated as the drug in the first place. The March 2019 order passed in this matter effectively brings into question any ban enforced on ENDS on the assumption that ENDS is a drug.  A Customs notification released in November 2018 had made it mandatory that import consignments of ENDS would require prior approval of Additional Drugs Controller, Customs. The said notification has also been stayed by the March 2019 order. 

In the author’s own considered opinion, however, the government is well within its powers to regulate ENDS as a drug. It is a fact that nicotine is a drug. As per the current construct of Drug Laws, a drug when consumed for non-medicinal purpose would remain a drug and be regulated as one. Therefore, what is actually left to be established whether the system i.e. ENDS is drug or not. As most readers are aware, ENDS is just a system that delivers nicotine. Therefore, it is not a chemical but a device. Drug Laws do not regulate all devices. They regulate notified devices only and ENDS is not a notified device. Therefore, ENDS sans nicotine cannot be said to be regulated under the Drug Laws. But a combination of ENDS with nicotine (i.e. refill) should certainly qualify as a drug. There are enough instances where such combination products have been regulated as drugs in India in the past. For instance, a Glucometer by itself is not a drug (at least not until January 1, 2020). But a Glucometer when sold along with glucose strips is regulated as a drug, because glucose strips are regulated as drugs. This analogy squarely applies to ENDS sold with nicotine refills.

Having said that, what is important to remember that the Drugs Laws do not ban ENDS with nicotine refills. Therefore, it is possible to structure business operations in a manner that it would be lawful to carry out the business of ENDS with nicotine refills under a drug license in India. 

ENDS as a Tobacco product

Most jurisdictions around the world, including the US and Europe, regulate ENDS as a tobacco product. In India, tobacco products are regulated by law, but in a limited manner. The Cigarette and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 and its rules (“Tobacco Laws”) regulate advertisement, sale to minors and labelling of cigarettes and tobacco products, but stop short of giving power to the government to ban a tobacco product in India. In other words, the Tobacco Laws in India impose compliance requirements for cigarettes and tobacco products, but the government cannot use it to ban import, manufacture or sale of tobacco product in India so long as the tobacco products are compliant to the requirements stipulated by law. Interestingly, the definition of ‘tobacco product’ under Tobacco Laws is exhaustive, and it means any product that is listed in the Schedule to the main Act. ENDS is not listed in that Schedule yet. Therefore, it is strongly arguable that Tobacco Laws in India do not apply to ENDS at all. 

Suffice it is to say that the Tobacco Laws, as they exist today, do not (read cannot) ban the sale of ENDS with nicotine refills.

ENDS as food

Food in India is regulated by the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and the rules and regulations made under it (“Food Laws”). The definition of “food” under India’s Food Laws extends to substances in the form of liquid, gas or vapour. Therefore, nicotine, when consumed in form of gas or vapour, may qualify as food. The consumption of nicotine as a food ingredient has been specifically banned under Food Laws. States such as Tamil Nadu and Union Territories like New Delhi have also issued notifications (1, 2) banning “all food products chewable or otherwise… containing tobacco and/or nicotine as ingredients” in public interest for successive periods of one year.

This makes it unequivocally clear that any food containing nicotine cannot be sold in India. It is but natural to conclude that the language of the ban would engulf ENDS with nicotine refills as well. A violation of Food Laws could result in confiscation, fine and imprisonment for the company involved as well as the person in charge of the operations of the company. 

However, the ban on products containing nicotine imposed through food laws is not without controversy. Over the last few years, different High Courts have given contrary decisions on whether tobacco products should be regulated exclusively under Tobacco Laws or both Tobacco and Food Laws. A February 2019 Madras High Court judgement has highlighted this contrarian position as well. Therefore, until the Supreme Court of India decides on this issue, it is possible to argue today that ENDS with nicotine refills should not be regulated as food, but rather as a tobacco product and be governed exclusively by the Tobacco Laws (which incidentally does not give power to the government to ban ENDS). This means that the ban on nicotine as food or food ingredient may have no bearing on ENDS with nicotine refills. 

ENDS as a poison

India regulates import and sale of poisons, in the same manner as drugs. A license is required to import or sell poisons. The difference between drug regulation and poison regulation is that every state has the power to notify any chemical as a poison and regulate it (this legal position has been upheld by Supreme Court as well). Thus, given the ambiguity surrounding the application of drug regulation to ENDS, some states in India have decided to notify nicotine as a poison under the Poisons Act, 1919 and thus regulate ENDS. For instance, Punjab has regulated nicotine as a poison since 2014.

A violation of the Poisons Act, 1919 could result in confiscation, fine and imprisonment.

Again, like drug regulations, the Poisons Act, 1919 does not ban the sale of ENDS with nicotine refills. Therefore, it is possible to structure business operations in a manner that it would be lawful to carry out the business of ENDS with nicotine refills under a poisons license in India.

ENDS (nicotine) as an insecticide

The chemical, Nicotine Sulphate, and preparations made out of it, have been identified as insecticide under the Insecticides Act, 1968. Any person desiring to import or manufacture or sell an insecticide requires regulatory clearance from the government.

However, Insecticides Act, 1968 itself exempts “Any substance specified or included in the schedule or any preparation containing any one or more such substances, if such substance or preparation is intended for purposes other than preventing, destroying, repelling or mitigating any insects, rodents, fungi, weeds and other forms of plant or animal life not useful to human beings“. Due to the said exemption, the fact that nicotine sulphate and its preparations are insecticides has no bearing for ENDS with nicotine refills, because it not intended to be used as an insecticide.

Takeaways

On the strength of the above analysis, it is difficult to say that trade in ENDS has been conclusively or comprehensively banned in India. It is true that some states such as Punjab, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka have banned the trade of ENDS within their territory, but such a ban does not appear to have a very strong backing of a statute. This becomes more evident as one peruses the actual text of the administrative orders through which the ban has been imposed, because there is hardly, if any, statutory provision cited in those orders to support the ban and the government appears to be relying solely on “public interest” to support its stance. Numerous media reports (1, 2) have also indicated that the government is struggling to find a way to ban ENDS. Therefore, it appears that the stage is set for the courts, especially the Supreme Court, to clarify the position on the so-called ban on ENDS in India. Until then, it cannot be said that it is not possible to do the business of ENDS in India.

Posted on

Ethical marketing and promotion of medicines

Time and again, the pharmaceutical industry has been accused of indulging in unethical practices concerning the marketing of medicines around the world.  These unethical marketing practices are, in fact, a major area of concern for the Government as well as patient groups. Amongst all unethical practices, the one that attracts the highest amount of scrutiny is the (questionable) interaction between pharmaceutical companies and healthcare practitioners (HCPs).

India is no exception. The Draft Pharmaceutical Policy, 2017 published by the Government itself makes a note that unethical practices employed by pharma companies are an area of major concern and that Doctors are lured to recommend a particular brand through all expenses paid trips often disguised as ‘educational conventions’. Unfortunately, the cost of such trips and other incentives gets added to the overhead cost of marketing of the medicine and is ultimately passed on to the patients.

There is no law at present that regulates the promotion and marketing of drugs (including medical devices) by companies before HCPs. Interactions between pharma companies and HCPs are regulated, at best, by way of restrictions cast on HCPs through their respective professional and ethical guidelines. For example, the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 regulate the professional and ethical conduct of doctors practising modern medicine and prohibits doctors from accepting any kind of freebies (including travel and accommodation) from pharma and allied healthcare industry. Unfortunately, the principal legislation that regulates the pharma industry i.e. The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 does not say what pharma companies can and cannot say, or give or cannot give, to HCPs.

It is true that there are consumer protection legislations in India such as the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now the Consumer Protection Act, 2019) and the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 and Rules, 1955 but these legislations regulate misleading advertisements, not unethical industry-HCP interaction.

It is, perhaps, not right to say that the government has turned a blind eye to this problem. In fact, in light of the increasing number of complaints of unethical practices adopted by pharma companies, the Department of Pharmaceuticals had introduced the Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP) back in 2011 (later revised in 2014). The intent behind UCPMP code was to guide the pharma industry in its interaction with HCPs. However, the voluntary nature of UCPMP has relegated its own status to that of a “non-binding guideline”.

However, not all is lost. There is no dearth of pharma companies who are proudly ethical in their dealings with HCPs. In fact, most pharma MNCs have put in place exhaustive internal guidelines and robust internal systems which guide interactions of their medical representatives/marketing personnel with HCPs.  Interestingly, HCPs also seem to value such ethical behaviour. It is obvious that, at the end of the day, a HCP will prescribe medicines from only those pharma companies whose quality he or she trusts.

It is quite likely that the Indian government may decide to give legal teeth to UCPMP and make it binding. After all, the UCPMP is the nearest Indian equivalent to the US Physicians Payment Sunshine Act that we have. Interestingly, the enforcement of the Sunshine Act by US Authorities have resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars in fines for some pharma companies.

There is no doubt that making UCPMP into a law would certainly help to curb the rampant quid-pro-quo arrangements that exist today between pharma companies and HCPs. More so, those companies which currently engage in unethical practices will be forced to re-evaluate their sales and marketing strategies and become compliant, or else they will have to face legal consequences.  

In the meanwhile, at least those companies who have achieved leadership positions in India’s pharma industry may lead by example and assume voluntary responsibility to follow UCPMP in text and spirit. The pharma industry associations would also do much good if they could adopt the UCPMP and direct their members to ensure compliance with the provisions of UCPMP at all costs. Such proactiveness will go a long way in instilling a sense of confidence amongst the Government and patients groups. And if that happens, needless to say,  the heavily regulated industry that is pharma industry will have one less regulation to worry about.

The views are personal.

Anil Upadhyay