Context

• Drug advertising has been a matter of public concern in India since 1927, when Sir Haroon Jaffer raised the issue of control of the craze for medicinal drugs in the Council of State.
• The concern eventually led to the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act (DMRA), 1954, which prohibits advertisements for drugs claiming to cure or prevent a list of 54 diseases and medical conditions.
• The purpose of this law was to protect citizens from misleading claims and pseudo-medical treatments.
• However, the digital age has transformed the advertising landscape. The rise of social media, search engines, and online marketplaces has created an environment where the spirit of the DMRA is routinely violated.

The Evolution of Drug Advertising: From Legislative Vigilance to Digital Evasion

• The DMRA was crafted at a time when government oversight could effectively target print and broadcast media.
• In the digital era, this model no longer holds. Online advertising operates across borders, managed by algorithms and corporations based outside India.
• As a result, unverified medical advertisements, especially those promoting “ayurvedic, homeopathic, or miracle” cures, have multiplied on the Internet.
• Searches for products such as ayurveda blood pressure tablets or homeopathy diabetes cures routinely display paid promotions under sponsored tags.
• Many of these advertisements claim to treat serious conditions like diabetes and cancer, violating the DMRA’s explicit prohibitions.
• The situation is made worse by promotional videos featuring spiritual figures who claim to cure all diseases using traditional medicine.
• Such practices have turned online platforms into powerful vehicles for misinformation that can endanger public health.

Double Standards in Global Corporate Behaviour and Legal Evasion

• Double Standards in Global Corporate Behaviour
  • A striking contrast exists between the conduct of technology companies in India and their behaviour in the United States. In the U.S., health-related advertisements are tightly controlled.
  • Platforms employ pre-screening systems and adhere to detailed content guidelines to ensure compliance with laws enforced by agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
  • False or unapproved therapeutic claims are swiftly removed, and violations invite criminal prosecution.
  • In India, the same companies apply no such rigour. Their advertising policies make no mention of the DMRA or its prohibitions, enabling advertisers to promote unverified medical products.
  • This double standard exposes a clear hierarchy in corporate compliance. Companies obey strong regulations in Western nations but neglect similar responsibilities in developing ones.
• Legal Evasion and Institutional Weakness
  • Technology companies often justify their inaction by claiming intermediary status under Indian law, a designation that shields them from liability for user-generated content.
  • Yet this argument collapses in the context of paid advertising.
  • Advertisements are not user-generated; they are actively solicited, approved, and monetised by the platforms themselves. Contracts are signed, payments are accepted, and advertising slots are deliberately allocated.
  • These are the actions of publishers, not passive intermediaries.
  • Regulatory weakness compounds the problem. The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed in 2008 over violations of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PNDT) offers a telling example.
  • Accountability is further weakened by the legal separation between Indian subsidiaries and their U.S.-based parent companies.

The Way Forward: Reclaiming Sovereignty through Reform

• Addressing these failures requires firm regulatory and legal reform.
• Criminal proceedings against responsible managerial personnel would mark a decisive step toward enforcement.
• Mandating that key decision-makers for advertising and content operations in India be citizens based in India would ensure accountability to domestic courts and laws.
• Such measures would align India’s digital governance with its sovereign right to protect public health.
• Another necessary reform is the conditional revocation of intermediary immunity.
• Platforms that disregard laws like the DMRA should not benefit from the protections granted to neutral intermediaries.
• Immunity must be contingent on compliance with Indian law. Without this condition, the privilege becomes an instrument of impunity rather than innovation.

Conclusion

• The history of India’s struggle against misleading medical advertisements, beginning in 1927 and codified in 1954, reveals a continuous tension between public welfare and commercial exploitation.
• The digital era has intensified this conflict, as foreign corporations exploit legal loopholes and weak enforcement to profit from misinformation.
• The unchecked spread of unverified health claims not only undermines the DMRA but also endangers millions who rely on such remedies in good faith.
• Restoring accountability demands a reassertion of legal authority, the creation of transparent enforcement mechanisms, and the political will to treat violations as serious crimes rather than administrative oversights.