AIIMS-Delhi researchers call for relook at ban on e-cigarettes
New Delhi, Aug 10 (PTI): AIIMS-Delhi researchers have called for a relook at the ban on electronic nicotine delivery systems in India, contending that e-cigarettes with nicotine, when compared with no treatment or usual care, have been evidenced to be of benefit, albeit with a risk of bias.
Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS), commonly known as e-cigarettes, are powered by batteries to simulate features of conventional tobacco smoking. In 2019, India banned the sale, storage and manufacture of such devices by bringing in the Prohibition of Electronic Cigarettes Act (PECA).
Examining the effects of this ban in light of current evidence, oncologists Dr Abhishek Shankar and Dr Vaibhav Sahni from AIIMS-Delhi, in a commentary published in the JCO Global Oncology this month, said a complete ban on such products "can (and has) routed demand towards illicit marketing".
They stated that the harms of following the abstinence approach in policy can be observed in the e-cigarette and vaping-associated lung injury outbreak in the United States, which was attributed to harmful ingredients in ENDS obtained from informal sources.
They stated that the United Kingdom, backed by Public Health England, followed a more pragmatic policy based on harm reduction, thereby adopting e-cigarettes as smoking cessation tools based on evidence.
Policy differences may be attributed to regulatory measures such as those on advertising, packaging, labelling, and lowering nicotine levels in e-fluids, the researchers said.
In their 2022 evidence update, the Public Health England found vaping to be associated with a minor fraction of conventional smoking risk in the short to medium term, while acknowledging the fact that vaping is not devoid of risks, especially for "never smokers".
The researchers said that India has seen some catastrophic results with a complete ban on liquor in some states, which has led to illicit commerce and deaths caused by consuming spurious products.
A complete ban on products may cause revenue loss to the administration as well, the doctors said, underlining that despite the ban, ENDS are available for sale at local shops and through online platforms, which may not even verify the purchaser's age before making the sale and even offer home delivery.
E-cigarettes, the AIIMS-Delho doctors stated, have been demonstrated to help people quit smoking, as evidenced by data supporting elevated quit rates. There is also evidence of moderate certainty that e-cigarettes with nicotine have greater quit rates in comparison with those without nicotine.
They also said e-cigarettes with nicotine, when compared with no treatment or usual care, have also been evidenced to be of benefit, albeit with risk of bias.
"There certainly appears to be a need for advocating at least a relook into the complete abstinence policy pertaining to ENDS as is being followed by the Government of India, which is guided by evidence.
"This will ensure that public health practices remain current and well-informed and people in need of appropriate cessation aids receive the help they need within the confines of a proper regulatory framework," the doctors recommended.
Talking to PTI, Dr Shankar, an assistant professor in the Department of Radiation Oncology at AIIMS-Delhi, said that available evidence conveys that the complete ENDS ban policy in India needs a relook.
"ENDS are a form of harm reduction and in a scenario where proven carcinogens such as alcohol and tobacco are not banned and ENDS are being illicitly marketed to never-smoking kids, certainly something like ENDS can be looked at for their cessation benefits with strict legislation and caution," he said.
Dr Vaibhav Sahni, a scientist in the Department of Radiation Oncology at AIIMS-Delhi, explained, "Since the ban was instituted, evidence has accrued to the extent that a relook into the ENDS policy is warranted."
"It is prudent practice to examine evidence in medicine from time to time in order to evaluate whether policy is still on the right TRACK," he told
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Single higher education regulator bill tabled in LS; Oppn flags ‘centralisation,' JPC likely
New Delhi: A bill to set up a 13-member body to regulate institutions of higher education was introduced in the Lok Sabha on Monday.
Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan introduced the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, which seeks to establish an overarching higher education commission along with three councils for regulation, accreditation, and ensuring academic standards for universities and higher education institutions in India.
Meanwhile, the move drew strong opposition, with members warning that it could weaken institutional autonomy and result in excessive centralisation of higher education in India.
The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, earlier known as the Higher Education Council of India (HECI) Bill, has been introduced in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
The proposed legislation seeks to merge three existing regulatory bodies, the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), into a single unified body called the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan.
At present, the UGC regulates non-technical higher education institutions, the AICTE oversees technical education, and the NCTE governs teacher education in India.
Under the proposed framework, the new commission will function through three separate councils responsible for regulation, accreditation, and the maintenance of academic standards across universities and higher education institutions in the country.
According to the Bill, the present challenges faced by higher educational institutions due to the multiplicity of regulators having non-harmonised regulatory approval protocols will be done away with.
The higher education commission, which will be headed by a chairperson appointed by the President of India, will cover all central universities and colleges under it, institutes of national importance functioning under the administrative purview of the Ministry of Education, including IITs, NITs, IISc, IISERs, IIMs, and IIITs.
At present, IITs and IIMs are not regulated by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
Government to refer bill to JPC; Oppn slams it
The government has expressed its willingness to refer it to a joint committee after several members of the Lok Sabha expressed strong opposition to the Bill, stating that they were not given time to study its provisions.
Responding to the opposition, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the government intends to refer the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed examination.
Congress Lok Sabha MP Manish Tewari warned that the Bill could result in “excessive centralisation” of higher education. He argued that the proposed law violates the constitutional division of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
According to him, the Bill goes beyond setting academic standards and intrudes into areas such as administration, affiliation, and the establishment and closure of university campuses. These matters, he said, fall under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List and Entry 32 of the State List, which cover the incorporation and regulation of state universities.
Tewari further stated that the Bill suffers from “excessive delegation of legislative power” to the proposed commission. He pointed out that crucial aspects such as accreditation frameworks, degree-granting powers, penalties, institutional autonomy, and even the supersession of institutions are left to be decided through rules, regulations, and executive directions. He argued that this amounts to a violation of established constitutional principles governing delegated legislation.
Under the Bill, the regulatory council will have the power to impose heavy penalties on higher education institutions for violating provisions of the Act or related rules. Penalties range from ₹10 lakh to ₹75 lakh for repeated violations, while establishing an institution without approval from the commission or the state government could attract a fine of up to ₹2 crore.
Concerns were also raised by members from southern states over the Hindi nomenclature of the Bill. N.K. Premachandran, an MP from the Revolutionary Socialist Party representing Kollam in Kerala, said even the name of the Bill was difficult to pronounce.
He pointed out that under Article 348 of the Constitution, the text of any Bill introduced in Parliament must be in English unless Parliament decides otherwise.
DMK MP T.M. Selvaganapathy also criticised the government for naming laws and schemes only in Hindi. He said the Constitution clearly mandates that the nomenclature of a Bill should be in English so that citizens across the country can understand its intent.
Congress MP S. Jothimani from Tamil Nadu’s Karur constituency described the Bill as another attempt to impose Hindi and termed it “an attack on federalism.”
_vb_22.jpeg)
