India Playbook

Selling Eyewear Online in India: The Real Split

Eyewear is three regulated categories wearing one catalogue. Only one of them is a licensed medical device in India, and most brands are worried about the wrong one.

Key takeaways
  • Contact lenses, including zero-power coloured ones, are a Class B medical device on the CDSCO ophthalmology classification list. Spectacle lenses, frames and sunglasses are not entries on that list.
  • The NCAHP Act, 2021 regulates who may practise optometry, not whether a retailer may sell a powered lens. Enrolment runs through state councils, so the working answer varies by state.
  • A powered lens is a configuration, not a SKU. Sphere, cylinder, axis and pupillary distance have no native field in most Indian marketplace catalogues, which forces a structural choice at launch.
  • A plano-only sunglasses brand is genuinely outside device licensing. Its compliance budget belongs in claim evidence and pack declarations instead.

Eyewear looks like one category on a marketplace and behaves like three in an operating plan. Treat a pair of sunglasses, a powered spectacle lens and a coloured contact lens as variants of one catalogue line and you eventually find that only one of them is a licensed product in India, and it is rarely the one anybody was worried about.

What follows is where the lines actually fall, checked against the source documents. Several answers are that a rule does not exist, and those are worth as much as the rules that do.

Three products, and only one of them is a device

The Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation publishes a list titled Classification of Medical Devices Pertaining to Ophthalmology, issued under File No. 29/Misc/03/2020-DC(187). It runs to 135 entries, from adaptometers to vitreous body prostheses.

Entry 13 is Contact Lens (Including Coloured Contact Lens), risk class B. Spectacle lens, spectacle frame, spectacles and sunglasses do not appear as entries anywhere on that list. The phrase spectacle lens shows up only inside entry 5, the automated lensmeter, which is the instrument that measures one.

Read that carefully before building a plan on it. The February 2020 notification that widened the definition of a medical device brought all devices with a medical purpose inside the Drugs and Cosmetics Act framework, and a classification list is guidance rather than statute. Advisers differ on whether a corrective spectacle lens is caught by the general definition despite its absence from the list. What is not in dispute is the contact lens.

The contact lens line is the one that needs a licence

A Class B device under the Medical Devices Rules, 2017 is licensed by the State Licensing Authority. Manufacture runs on Form MD-3 with the licence on Form MD-5. Import runs on Form MD-14 with the licence on Form MD-15 from the Central Licensing Authority. The phase-in came from G.S.R. 102(E) dated 11 February 2020, which put Class A and Class B devices under the licensing regime from 1 October 2022 and Class C and Class D from 1 October 2023.

The commercial sting sits in the bracket. A zero-power cosmetic lens sold as a festival look is the same Class B device as a corrective one, because power has nothing to do with the classification. Cosmetic lenses listed through a beauty or fashion seller account, with no licence number in the file, are the most common miss in this category, and the exposure is the seller account rather than the margin on the order.

Who is allowed to hand a powered lens over

The governing instrument is the National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions Act, 2021, Act 14 of 2021. It received assent on 28 March 2021 and came into force on 25 May 2021 by S.O. 2012(E). Its Schedule lists Ophthalmic Sciences Professional as a recognised category, covering Optometrist, Ophthalmic Assistant and Vision Technician.

Section 15 is the operative bar. No person, other than a registered allied and healthcare professional, shall provide service in any of the recognised categories in any State. Section 57 carries a fine up to one lakh rupees on a first conviction, and up to a year in prison or two lakh on a later one. Section 59 sets a general penalty of one to three years and one to five lakh rupees.

Now the limit, stated plainly, because getting this wrong in either direction is expensive. The Act regulates the professional, not the transaction. It does not say a retailer must hold a prescription on file before glazing a powered lens, and India has no counterpart to the prescription-release rules some other markets have. Enrolment happens through State Allied and Healthcare Councils, constituted state by state rather than in one stroke, and the defined scope of practice is set by regulation rather than on the face of the Act. So the accurate position is this: the person performing the refraction needs to be registered where the council is running, and the sale itself is not separately licensed. If you need a harder answer, it is a state question, not a national one.

What the listing and the catalogue have to carry

Marketplaces split eyewear along their own seams, and those seams do not match the legal ones. Sunglasses and empty frames sit in fashion accessories, where brand authorisation is the gate. Contact lenses and lens care sit under health, where the licence number field is. A brand selling both runs two onboarding files under one GSTIN.

The deeper catalogue problem is that a powered lens is not a SKU. It is a configuration. Sphere, cylinder, axis, pupillary distance, lens index, material and coating vary per order, so the object you are selling does not exist until the order is placed. Most Indian marketplace catalogues have no native field for any of it. Brands respond by encoding power in the title, by selling frame-only and glazing off platform, or by keeping the marketplace for plano and the powered range on their own site. All three are defensible. Choosing by accident is not.

One consequence worth pricing before launch: a glazed lens cannot re-enter stock. Whatever the returns policy says, that unit is scrapped, so the reverse leg on a powered order is a write-off, not a handling cost.

Where a plano-only brand is genuinely outside all of it

A brand selling only non-powered sunglasses and unglazed frames is outside the ophthalmology device list, outside the optometry registration question, and outside any compulsory BIS certification order a public search of the scheme lists turns up for eyewear. The compliance budget for a sunglasses launch belongs somewhere other than device licensing.

It belongs in two places instead. The first is the ordinary pack and invoice discipline that applies to any packaged good, covered in what legal metrology labelling requires on an ecommerce listing. The second, and the one that gets brands into trouble here, is the claims printed on the lens, the tag and the listing. UV protection, polarisation and category numbers are testable assertions with published test methods behind them, and they are the subject of the companion piece on what a UV protection claim on sunglasses has to prove.

The shape is familiar from jewellery, where hallmarking binds one metal in notified districts. Find the narrow thing that is genuinely licensed, licence it properly, and stop paying for compliance theatre on the rest.

The daily brief

Never miss a move

The moves that move money, every morning.

One email a day. No spam, ever.

FAQ

Quick answers.

For plano frames and non-powered sunglasses, nothing on the CDSCO ophthalmology classification list applies to them. Contact lenses are different and do require a licence. For powered spectacle lenses the position is less clean, because the 2020 notification widened the device definition even though spectacle lenses are absent from the ophthalmology list. Get a written view for your specific product rather than relying on the list alone.
No. The classification entry reads Contact Lens (Including Coloured Contact Lens) and sits at risk class B. Power is irrelevant to the classification. A cosmetic lens sold as a party accessory carries the same licensing obligation as a corrective one, and listing it under a beauty seller account does not change that.
There is no central Indian rule that says so, and no Indian counterpart to the prescription-release rules found in some other markets. What is regulated is the person doing the refraction, under the NCAHP Act, 2021. Many Indian brands collect a prescription anyway because it is the only reliable input to the order, not because a statute compels it.
On the claims and the declarations. UV protection, polarisation and filter category are testable assertions with published test methods, and they are the statements most likely to draw a complaint. Pack and invoice declarations are the second item. Device licensing is not on the list for a plano-only range.

Related insights

From the wire

India's Commerce Engine

Put it
to work.

hello@zane.marketing

Book a meeting