A decade in court
AVI in court
Since 2017, AVI has organised, funded and directed court challenges to e-cigarette bans in Karnataka, Delhi, Jammu & Kashmir and Tamil Nadu. Today it is fighting the ban on carrying e-cigarettes on flights in the Delhi High Court.
The win: AVI's litigation helped block the government's backdoor bans by circular and advisory for years. In the end it had to take a law through Parliament: PECA, 2019.
Sellers and manufacturers have brought their own challenges, in Mumbai, Kolkata and elsewhere. AVI is a consumer advocacy organisation and has never funded, filed or directed litigation for the industry. Each card below makes that line clear.
Delhi High Court — challenge to the flight ban on e-cigarettes (2022)
Delhi · Delhi High Court
AVI is fighting this case today. The Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS) bars e-cigarettes from airport premises and aircraft, under directions issued under the Aircraft Act, 1934 that cite PECA. Two consumer petitioners, both former smokers whose devices were confiscated at airport security, argue that the directions go beyond what PECA prohibits and beyond BCAS's powers. AVI identified and briefed the petitioners, retained counsel and has directed the litigation since the first draft. The named petitioners are individual consumers, not AVI.
Full case record →Delhi High Court — commercial challenge to the ENDS advisory's enforcement (2019)
Delhi · Delhi High Court
Litigants including two companies and an individual consumer challenged two central measures enforcing the Health Ministry's August 2018 advisory on ENDS: a February 2019 communication asking state drug regulators to stop their sale and a November 2018 circular referring import consignments to drug control authorities. The court stayed both, taking the prima facie view that ENDS are not a "drug" under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Other litigants later relied on the order.
Full case record →Bombay High Court — seller challenges to FDA action on ENDS (2019)
Maharashtra · High Court of Judicature at Bombay
Two separate, independently brought challenges to Maharashtra's enforcement action against ENDS. A company whose e-cigarette stock had been inspected by the state Food and Drugs Administration challenged the resulting notice and won interim protection, relying on the Delhi High Court's March 2019 stay. A group of Mumbai vape retailers brought their own challenge.
Full case record →Madras High Court — challenge to Tamil Nadu's ENDS ban (2018)
Tamil Nadu · Madras High Court
AVI organised, funded and ran this litigation end to end: it commissioned the first draft, briefed a consumer petitioner, a former smoker who had switched to vaping, and engaged local counsel to file and argue it. The petition challenged the Tamil Nadu government order of 3 September 2018 banning the manufacture, sale, distribution, trade, display, marketing, advertisement, use, import and possession of ENDS. It argued that the ban was arbitrary, rested on no study and breached Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution.
Full case record →Jammu & Kashmir High Court (Srinagar) — challenge to the ENDS ban (2018)
Jammu & Kashmir · High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Srinagar (Division Bench)
An AVI-backed public interest petition against the State of Jammu & Kashmir and the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, challenging the state's July 2017 circular banning ENDS and a May 2018 order imposing a complete ban on their sale, purchase and use across the Kashmir Division. In 2019 a distributor separately applied to intervene, arguing for regulation under COTPA instead of a ban.
Full case record →Delhi High Court — challenge seeking regulation, not a ban, of ENDS (2017)
Delhi · Delhi High Court (Division Bench)
An individual petitioner asked the court to direct the Union government, the Delhi government and FSSAI to regulate ENDS rather than ban them: a policy framework for their sale, registration of sellers, public information on their risks and a ban on use in public places, as applies to cigarettes. The Health Ministry told the court it was preparing measures that included a ban. Counsel engaged on AVI's behalf appeared for a proposed intervenor.
Full case record →Karnataka High Court — challenge to the state circular banning ENDS (2017)
Karnataka · High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru
A public interest petition brought on AVI's behalf against the State of Karnataka. It challenged the state's June 2016 circular banning the sale, manufacture, distribution, trade, import and advertisement of ENDS. The petition argued that the circular named no statute, was never notified in the official gazette and rested on no study, citing an RTI reply to that effect. It asked the court to quash the ban and direct regulation instead.
Full case record →Calcutta High Court — challenge to Customs withholding e-cigarette imports (2014)
West Bengal · Calcutta High Court
A commercial importer challenged Customs' decision to withhold its e-cigarette consignment at Kolkata Airport. Customs had held the goods until the consignee obtained an opinion from the Drugs Controller, which was adverse, but conceded it had no instructions to stop such imports and that they were being cleared at other ports. This is the oldest matter on this page, decided more than four years before the national ban.
Full case record →