Background Graphic health warning labels (HWLs) on tobacco product packaging have been identified by the World Health Organization (WHO) as a cost-effective policy intervention to warn consumers about the health risks of tobacco. Compliance with HWLs shields young individuals from tobacco marketing influences and exposes users to health warnings. Assessing compliance with health warning labels would provide insights into the state of law implementation. The study assessed health warning labels on tobacco packages as per the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (COTPA) (Packaging and Labelling) Amendment Rules of 2020, specifically assessing their availability around educational institutions in Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India. Materials and methods From August 2022 to January 2023, a protocol was employed to collect information on the sale of tobacco products around educational institutions including packages of cigarettes, beedis, and smokeless tobacco (SLT) from Bhubaneswar City. Using multistage random sampling 18 schools were selected in Bhubaneswar City. Areas within 100 yards (91.44 meters) of each school were mapped using a map tool. All prospective tobacco vendors within 100 yards of each school were included in the study. The data on compliance with HWLs were summarized using descriptive statistics. The health warnings compliance assessment of the tobacco products available with the vendors was conducted using three major indicators, including analysis of the font content, size and element of the graphics, and textual health warnings. In addition, the surface area occupied by these warnings was measured using a calibrated ruler. Results Within 100 yards of 18 schools in Bhubaneswar city, 57 vendors were found selling tobacco. About 48 distinct brands and 791 unbranded tobacco products were identified from 2135 packets collected from 57 vendors. Out of the 48 branded product packets examined, 25 brands were for smoking (cigarettes, bidis), while 23 were for SLT products such as khaini, gutkha, and pan masala containing tobacco. Only six brands out of 17 cigarette packs complied with HWL provisions. None of the eight unique bidi packs and 302 unbranded bidi packs were compliant with any HWL compliance indicators. Other compliance-related issues included incomplete health warning labels, out-of-rotation pictorial health warnings, distorted printing (blurry, heavy tint, and faded), and split warnings. Conclusion Tobacco products were sold within 100 yards of educational institutions in clear violation of the COTPA Section 6 provisions. Furthermore, the tobacco products sold were also not in compliance with the health warning label laws under section 7 of COTPA. There is an urgent need for strict enforcement of the provisions relating to the ban on sale within 100 yards of educational institutions and health warning label rules in Bhubaneshwar.