A recent explainer asks whether nicotine pouches are “beyond the law” in India and concludes by suggesting that the government could quickly prohibit their import and sale on health grounds. The article identifies genuine uncertainty around the treatment of tobacco-free nicotine pouches under India’s existing legislation. However, the suggestion that these products effectively occupy a legal vacuum risks oversimplifying a much more complex regulatory picture.
The absence of nicotine pouches from a product-specific prohibition does not mean that they sit outside Indian law. Their legal treatment can engage several existing frameworks, including tobacco control, drug regulation, food-safety requirements, customs and import controls, and consumer-protection law. The more important policy question is therefore not whether India has regulatory tools available, but how those tools should be applied consistently, transparently and proportionately.
COTPA Does Not Cover Every Nicotine Product
The Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act 2003 (COTPA) regulates products identified as tobacco products under its statutory framework. Tobacco-free nicotine pouches do not obviously fall within the existing scheduled categories simply because they contain nicotine.
That distinction is important. Nicotine and tobacco are not legally interchangeable concepts, and attempting to force every nicotine-containing product into legislation originally designed around tobacco can create further uncertainty.
However, limited coverage under COTPA does not establish that nicotine pouches are unregulated. It demonstrates instead that India’s existing tobacco legislation was not designed to provide a comprehensive framework for every form of nicotine product now entering the market.
The appropriate response should therefore begin with clear product classification rather than an assumption that anything outside COTPA must either be unrestricted or prohibited.
PECA Is the Wrong Framework for Oral Nicotine Products
The Prohibition of Electronic Cigarettes Act 2019 (PECA) applies to electronic cigarettes and related electronic nicotine-delivery products. Nicotine pouches contain no electronic component and produce neither smoke nor aerosol. They are therefore fundamentally different products.
Their exclusion from PECA is consequently unsurprising. It should not be interpreted as evidence of a loophole.
Product-specific regulation matters because different nicotine products have different characteristics, exposure pathways and risk profiles. Applying legislation intended for electronic devices to an oral nicotine product simply because both contain nicotine would blur distinctions that should instead inform proportionate regulation.
PECA’s inapplicability also says nothing about whether other Indian laws may govern the manufacture, import, marketing or sale of nicotine pouches.
Drug Classification Requires Greater Precision
The position under India’s Drugs and Cosmetics framework is more complicated and should not be reduced to the question of whether nicotine itself appears in a particular schedule.
How a nicotine product is presented and marketed can be highly relevant. There is an important distinction between an authorised nicotine-replacement therapy intended to treat nicotine dependence, a consumer nicotine product making no therapeutic claim, and a product marketed as helping users quit smoking, manage addiction or reduce disease risk.
The 2026 ICMR-National Institute of Cancer Prevention and Research consultation report records enforcement activity by Tamil Nadu drug-control authorities against nicotine pouch manufacturers, distributors and online marketplace operators on the basis that products were being treated as unapproved drugs accompanied by unauthorised therapeutic claims. The report also recommends wider action involving drug-control and import authorities.
That enforcement position should not be confused with a definitive judicial determination that every nicotine pouch is legally a drug. But it demonstrates why the Drugs and Cosmetics framework cannot simply be dismissed.
GINN supports clear classification criteria that distinguish authorised nicotine-replacement therapies from consumer nicotine products and provide manufacturers, retailers, consumers and enforcement authorities with predictable rules.
Treating Nicotine Pouches as Food Does Not Resolve the Issue
The suggestion that nicotine pouches might qualify as food presents another difficulty.
India’s Food Safety and Standards (Prohibition and Restrictions on Sales) Regulations state that tobacco and nicotine shall not be used as ingredients in food products. If a nicotine pouch were legally classified as food, its nicotine content would therefore create an immediate regulatory problem rather than provide a straightforward pathway to lawful sale.
Food classification should consequently not be presented as a regulatory safe harbour.
The underlying issue remains classification. If nicotine pouches fall within the food framework, the applicable restrictions need to be enforced. If they do not, regulators should identify the appropriate alternative framework rather than leaving manufacturers and consumers to infer their status from legislation developed for different products.
Restricted Import Does Not Mean Unrestricted Sale
The customs position requires similar care.
A product being classified as “restricted” rather than “prohibited” does not mean that it is freely importable. Restricted goods require the relevant licence or authorisation, and customs classification alone does not constitute regulatory approval for domestic sale.
Import legality can also depend on whether the product complies with other applicable Indian requirements. A customs tariff heading identifies goods for customs purposes; it does not necessarily determine how those products should be treated under drug, food-safety or consumer-protection legislation.
The ICMR-NICPR consultation report takes a restrictive position and recommends that relevant authorities prevent the importation of oral nicotine pouches on the basis that they constitute unapproved drugs. Whether that interpretation ultimately becomes the definitive national legal position requires a clear regulatory basis and consistent implementation.
What is already clear is that “restricted” should not be confused with “approved”.
Duty-Free Does Not Mean Outside Indian Law
The availability of nicotine pouches at some airport duty-free outlets similarly cannot establish their legal status.
Duty-free arrangements alter the customs treatment of goods. Whether nicotine pouches may lawfully be stocked or sold through such channels depends on their classification, the conditions governing their import and storage, and compliance with other applicable laws.
The presence of a product on a duty-free shelf is therefore evidence of availability, not evidence of regulatory approval.
Regulation Should Be Clear, Not Rushed
The strongest point raised by the current debate is that India needs greater regulatory clarity. Where novel nicotine products do not fit comfortably within legislation written for cigarettes, tobacco products, medicines, food or electronic cigarettes, ambiguity can create problems for consumers, legitimate businesses and enforcement agencies alike.
But ambiguity does not automatically justify a hastily constructed prohibition.
A durable regulatory framework should define the products it covers, establish appropriate manufacturing and product-quality standards, prevent sales to minors, require accurate consumer information, prohibit misleading therapeutic or health claims, establish clear import requirements and provide effective market surveillance and enforcement.
It should also distinguish between combustible tobacco and non-combustible nicotine products rather than treating nicotine itself as the sole determinant of regulatory treatment.
This distinction is particularly important from a harm-reduction perspective. Nicotine is addictive and requires responsible regulation, but the health risks associated with nicotine products depend substantially on how they are formulated and used. Combustion remains a critical source of the harms associated with cigarette smoking.
A Better Regulatory Question
The debate around nicotine pouches in India should therefore move beyond the binary question of whether the products are either “legal” or “banned”.
They are not beyond the reach of Indian law. Existing legislation already provides authorities with several potential regulatory and enforcement mechanisms, although uncertainty remains about how some of those mechanisms apply specifically to tobacco-free oral nicotine products.
For GINN, the appropriate response is a clear, evidence-led and proportionate framework that protects young people and non-users, acts against unsafe or illicit products and misleading claims, preserves the distinct status of authorised nicotine-replacement therapies, and establishes predictable rules for adult consumer nicotine products.
Regulatory ambiguity should be resolved. But resolving it requires careful classification and proportionate rules, rather than assuming that the absence of an existing product-specific prohibition can only be answered with another ban.
Sources
Government of India, Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 (COTPA).
ICMR–National Institute of Cancer Prevention and Research, 2026 consultation report on oral nicotine pouches.
Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, Food Safety and Standards (Prohibition and Restrictions on Sales) Regulations, 2011, Regulation 2.3.4.
