The Hindu Editorial Analysis
28 October 2025
Big Tech’s Contempt for Indian Public Health
(Source – The Hindu, International Edition – Page No. – 8)
Topic : GS Paper II: Governance |GS Paper IV: Ethics
Context
The editorial examines how American Big Tech platforms (Google, Meta, etc.) are routinely violating India’s Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 (DMRA) by hosting advertisements for unapproved drugs, health cures, and wellness products, especially Ayurvedic and herbal medicines claiming therapeutic benefits.
Despite clear statutory prohibitions, these platforms’ operations in India display contempt for Indian law, exploiting regulatory loopholes and evading accountability by claiming to be “intermediaries” rather than “publishers.”
The article highlights how this impunity not only undermines public health and medical ethics but also challenges India’s digital sovereignty and capacity for rule enforcement in the globalized tech economy.
1. Background: The Legal Framework on Drug Advertising
a) Historical Context
- The issue of regulating misleading drug advertisements dates back to 1927, when Sir Haroon Jaffer raised it in the Council of State under the British government.
- The DMRA Act of 1954 prohibits advertisement of any drug claiming to cure, prevent, or treat diseases listed in Schedule J — including diabetes, cancer, and sexual disorders — unless its efficacy is clinically established.
- This Act was intended to protect the public from fraudulent health claims and unverified “miracle cures.”
b) Core Provisions of the DMRA
- Section 3: Prohibits misleading advertisements for drugs and remedies.
- Section 4: Restricts advertisements for specified diseases.
- Section 7: Provides for criminal penalties — including fines and imprisonment.
The law applies to publishers and distributors of such content — meaning Big Tech platforms are legally liable for hosting these ads.
2. The Digital Shift: Big Tech as New Advertisers
a) The Internet’s Transformation of Advertising
- With the rise of search engines, social media, and e-commerce platforms, global advertising shifted from print/broadcast to targeted digital marketing.
- This transition empowered Big Tech companies to dominate the ad-tech ecosystem, but it also made governments’ regulatory oversight far more difficult.
b) Misleading Health Advertisements Online
- The authors note how health-related claims — like “diabetes reversal,” “anti-cancer herbal cure,” or “immunity-boosting elixirs” — are routinely promoted on Big Tech platforms in India.
- These platforms profit from algorithmic ad placement, targeting vulnerable users through behavioral data.
- Such content, by promoting unverified cures, violates both the DMRA and consumer protection laws.
In India, the Drugs Controller General (DCGI) and Ministry of Health have limited digital enforcement powers, leaving a massive compliance gap.
3. Why Big Tech Gets Away with It
a) Contempt for Indian Law
The authors argue that Big Tech’s non-compliance is partly rooted in corporate arrogance — a view that Indian laws are inferior to Western standards.
- Similar health ads are banned in the U.S. under the FDA Act, and these companies comply there due to strict enforcement.
- In contrast, the Indian regulatory system lacks capacity, coordination, and digital oversight tools.
b) The “Intermediary” Argument
- Big Tech often claims immunity under Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000, arguing it is merely an “intermediary” and not a “publisher.”
- However, when platforms actively target and optimize ad placements, they cross into editorial control, nullifying that defense.
- Indian courts have previously rejected similar evasions — e.g., in the 2009 PIL on Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (PNDT) Act, where Google was found violating ad restrictions on sex determination services.
Yet, enforcement remains weak, enabling systemic non-compliance and profit-driven indifference to Indian regulations.
4. Ethical and Governance Concerns
a) Disregard for Public Health
The article stresses that unregulated digital advertising undermines:
- Medical ethics, by normalizing unscientific remedies.
- Consumer safety, by promoting untested products.
- Trust in governance, by exposing India’s inability to regulate foreign corporations.
b) Weak Institutional Response
- The Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) and the Ministry of Electronics and IT (MeitY) operate in silos, with poor inter-agency coordination.
- A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against such violations languished for nine years, showing bureaucratic inertia and political reluctance.
Meanwhile, millions of Indians are exposed daily to deceptive “health cures,” including potentially harmful substances.
5. The Larger Issue: Sovereignty and Accountability
a) American Corporate Immunity
Big Tech’s disregard also reflects digital colonialism — where Western corporations obey domestic regulations but ignore developing nations’ laws.
- Enforcement asymmetry allows them to profit from weaker jurisdictions, while lobbying against tighter oversight.
b) India’s Policy Blind Spots
India’s regulatory system is reactive, not anticipatory.
- Laws like the DMRA (1954), IT Act (2000), and Consumer Protection Rules (2020) have not evolved fast enough for algorithmic advertising models.
- Absence of a Digital Competition Law and cross-sectoral regulator leaves enforcement fragmented.
The authors call this a crisis of legal modernity — where laws exist, but enforcement capacity lags behind Big Tech’s technological reach.
6. The Way Forward: Strengthening India’s Regulatory Teeth
a) Policy Reforms Needed
- Criminal Enforcement:
The Health Ministry must initiate criminal prosecution against tech platforms for DMRA violations. - Digital Health Regulator:
Establish a cross-agency Digital Health Advertising Authority under the DMRA framework. - Intermediary Accountability:
Amend Section 79 of the IT Act to hold platforms liable for algorithmic amplification of unlawful content. - Consumer Awareness Campaigns:
Launch nationwide digital literacy drives on false health claims.
b) Diplomatic and Structural Steps
- Use reciprocal compliance clauses in India–U.S. digital trade dialogues.
- Strengthen cooperation between RBI, MeitY, and the Ministry of Health for monitoring health-related fintech and ad-tech.
Conclusion
The editorial concludes that India must treat Big Tech’s violations as a public health crisis rather than a mere compliance issue.
By combining legal enforcement, ethical responsibility, and technological oversight, India can reclaim regulatory sovereignty over digital health misinformation.
“Digital giants that comply with American law cannot flout Indian law in India — compliance cannot be a matter of geography, but of principle.”