Toothless Ban, Why Single-Use Plastic Continues to Thrive Despite Prohibition
Three Years After the Nationwide Ban, a Toxics Link Study Finds 84% of Surveyed Locations Still Using Banned Items—Exposing Gaps in Enforcement, Consumer Behaviour, and Alternative Availability
About 84 per cent of 560 locations surveyed across four cities—one each in eastern, north-eastern, northern, and western India—continue using single-use plastic items banned across the country three years ago. The finding, from a field study conducted by Toxics Link, a New Delhi-based environmental research and advocacy organisation, exposes the uncomfortable truth about India’s plastic ban: it exists on paper but not in practice.
The survey teams assessed the on-ground effectiveness of the ban across a wide range of establishments, including street vendors, juice stalls, markets, small restaurants, grocery stores, religious sites, railway platforms, and organised retail spaces. The results were stark. Bhubaneswar recorded the highest availability of banned single-use plastic items at 89 per cent of the survey locations, closely followed by Delhi at 86 per cent, Mumbai at 85 per cent, and Guwahati at 76 per cent.
This is not a failure of intent. It is a failure of implementation, of enforcement, of the complex ecosystem that sustains the use of plastic despite its prohibition.
The Ban and Its Intentions
In 2022, the Government of India announced a ban on identified single-use plastic items, a significant step in the country’s effort to combat plastic pollution. The ban targeted items that have “low utility and high littering potential,” including plastic carry bags (below 120 microns), cutlery, cups, plates, straws, and other disposable items. The intent was clear: reduce the plastic waste that chokes drains, clogs rivers, and pollutes land and oceans.
Three years later, the intent remains unfulfilled. The Toxics Link study found widespread presence of banned single-use plastic items across Indian markets and small commercial establishments. Thin plastic carry bags, disposable plastic cutlery, cups, plates, and straws were widely found across all four cities surveyed.
The Enforcement Gap
“The continued presence of banned plastic items in a majority of locations suggests that enforcement remains inconsistent. Unless implementation improves and the supply of these products is controlled, the ban will not effectively address plastic littering and pollution,” Ravi Agarwal, director of Toxics Link, said.
The study highlighted a clear sectoral divide. Organised malls and larger retail outlets showed significantly better adherence to the ban compared to informal markets dominated by small vendors. This disparity points to a fundamental weakness in the enforcement architecture: large establishments are easier to monitor, easier to penalize, and more responsive to regulatory pressure. Small vendors, operating in the informal economy, are harder to reach, harder to monitor, and often operate below the radar of enforcement agencies.
The supply chain, too, remains largely untouched. The ban on single-use plastic items is only effective if the production, distribution, and sale of these items are halted. Yet the study suggests that banned items continue to flow from manufacturers to wholesalers to retailers, unimpeded by the prohibition. Without controlling the supply, demand will continue to be met, and the ban will remain toothless.
The Customer Demand Factor
About 91 per cent of the vendors across the survey sites said customers asked for carry bags. Interactions with vendors also revealed that 55 per cent customers brought their own bags, but many customers still expect vendors to provide free carry bags.
Satish Sinha, the associate director of Toxics Link, said that customer preferences partly influence vendors’ reluctance to transition from plastic to paper bags, wooden cutlery, steel utensils, aluminium foil containers, bagasse plates, cloth bags, and thicker reusable plastic bags above 120 microns.
“Customers perceive disposable plates and cutlery to be more hygienic than reusable items. Our survey found that this perception, along with the cost factor, influences the continued use of single-use plastic,” the report noted.
This is a crucial insight. The ban fails not only because enforcement is weak but also because consumer behaviour has not changed. Customers still demand plastic carry bags. They still prefer disposable plates and cutlery. They perceive these items as more hygienic than reusable alternatives. They expect vendors to provide them for free.
The Cost of Alternatives
The study found that the cost of alternatives is a significant barrier. Paper bags cost more than plastic bags. Wooden cutlery is more expensive than plastic cutlery. Cloth bags require an upfront investment that many customers are unwilling to make. For small vendors operating on thin margins, these costs are not trivial.
There is also a perception that alternatives are less convenient. Paper bags tear easily. Wooden cutlery can splinter. Cloth bags need to be washed. Plastic, by contrast, is cheap, durable, and convenient. Until alternatives match plastic on cost and convenience, customers and vendors will continue to prefer plastic.
The Regional Variations
The study found significant regional variations in the availability of banned items. Bhubaneswar recorded the highest availability at 89 per cent, followed by Delhi at 86 per cent, Mumbai at 85 per cent, and Guwahati at 76 per cent. The reasons for these variations are not fully clear, but they likely reflect differences in enforcement intensity, local politics, and the structure of the informal economy.
Guwahati’s relatively lower figure—though still alarmingly high at 76 per cent—may reflect stronger enforcement efforts in the north-eastern state, or perhaps a lower baseline of plastic use. But 76 per cent is not a figure to celebrate. It means that three out of four locations surveyed in Guwahati were still using banned plastic items.
The Environmental Toll
The continued use of single-use plastic has severe environmental consequences. Plastic waste clogs drains, leading to flooding during rains. It pollutes rivers and oceans, harming aquatic life. It breaks down into microplastics that enter the food chain, with unknown health effects. It takes hundreds of years to decompose, accumulating in landfills and natural environments.
The ban was intended to address these problems. But a ban that is not enforced is worse than no ban at all. It creates the illusion of action while the underlying problem persists. It undermines public trust in the government’s ability to regulate and enforce.
The Way Forward
The report called for stronger national action by all stakeholders—governments, single-use plastic manufacturers, retailers, and consumers—in line with the discussions at the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution held in Geneva, Switzerland in 2025.
It recommended more robust enforcement and monitoring mechanisms with regular inspections, coordinated action among regulatory agencies, and consistent penalties to ensure compliance with the ban on single-use plastics.
But enforcement alone is not enough. The report’s findings suggest that a multi-pronged approach is needed. First, supply chains must be disrupted. Manufacturers and wholesalers of banned items must be identified and penalized. The production of banned items must be halted.
Second, consumer behaviour must change. This requires awareness campaigns that address the perception that disposable plastic is more hygienic than reusable alternatives. It requires educating customers about the environmental impact of their choices. It may require incentives for using reusable bags and containers.
Third, alternatives must become more affordable and convenient. This could involve subsidies for manufacturers of alternatives, research into new materials, and support for small vendors to transition away from plastic.
Fourth, enforcement must be strengthened. Regular inspections, coordinated action across agencies, and consistent penalties are essential. The disparity between organized retail and informal markets must be addressed.
Fifth, there must be accountability. The ban is three years old. It has clearly failed to achieve its objectives. Those responsible for enforcement must be held accountable for this failure.
Conclusion: From Paper to Practice
The Toxics Link study is a sobering assessment of the gap between policy and practice. Three years after the ban, single-use plastic remains ubiquitous in Indian markets. The ban exists on paper but not in reality.
This is not a reason to abandon the ban. It is a reason to strengthen it. The problem is not with the policy but with its implementation. The ban was a necessary first step. Now comes the harder work of making it effective.
The findings from Bhubaneswar, Delhi, Mumbai, and Guwahati are a wake-up call. They show that the government cannot simply announce a ban and expect it to be followed. Enforcement requires sustained effort, coordination, and resources. It requires changing the behaviour of millions of consumers and vendors. It requires disrupting supply chains and providing affordable alternatives.
The ban on single-use plastic was a landmark decision. But a landmark is just a marker. The journey from that landmark to a plastic-free India is long and difficult. The Toxics Link study shows how far we still have to go.
Q&A: Unpacking the Single-Use Plastic Ban Failure
Q1: What did the Toxics Link study find about compliance with the single-use plastic ban?
A: The study found that about 84 per cent of 560 locations surveyed across Bhubaneswar, Delhi, Mumbai, and Guwahati continue using banned single-use plastic items, three years after the nationwide ban was implemented. Bhubaneswar recorded the highest availability at 89 per cent, followed by Delhi (86 per cent), Mumbai (85 per cent), and Guwahati (76 per cent). Items found included thin plastic carry bags, disposable plastic cutlery, cups, plates, and straws.
Q2: What are the main reasons for the continued use of banned plastic items?
A: The study identified several factors: inconsistent enforcement; uncontrolled supply chains; high customer demand (91% of vendors said customers ask for carry bags); customer perception that disposable plastic is more hygienic than reusable alternatives; higher cost of alternatives; and the convenience and low cost of plastic. Organised retail showed better compliance, but informal markets dominated by small vendors continue to use banned items.
Q3: How does customer behaviour contribute to the problem?
A: About 91 per cent of vendors said customers ask for carry bags. While 55 per cent of customers bring their own bags, many still expect free carry bags from vendors. Customers perceive disposable plates and cutlery as more hygienic than reusable items, influencing vendors to continue stocking banned plastic items. This perception, combined with the expectation of free plastic bags, creates sustained demand that supply chains continue to meet.
Q4: What recommendations does the report make?
A: The report calls for stronger national action from all stakeholders—governments, manufacturers, retailers, and consumers. It recommends more robust enforcement and monitoring mechanisms with regular inspections, coordinated action among regulatory agencies, and consistent penalties. It also calls for controlling the supply of banned products, changing consumer behaviour through awareness campaigns, and making alternatives more affordable and convenient.
Q5: Why is the continued use of single-use plastic a serious environmental concern?
A: Single-use plastic waste clogs drains, leading to urban flooding; pollutes rivers and oceans, harming aquatic life; breaks down into microplastics that enter the food chain with unknown health effects; and takes hundreds of years to decompose, accumulating in landfills and natural environments. A ban that is not enforced creates the illusion of action while the underlying problem persists, undermining public trust in the government’s ability to regulate. The 2022 ban targeted items with “low utility and high littering potential,” but three years later, these items remain widely available.
