Article 51A(h) of the Constitution declares it a fundamental duty of every citizen to cultivate scientific temper, humanism, and the spirit of inquiry and reform. Yet this mandate has often struggled to translate into institutional practice. The recent litigation over misleading medical advertisements illustrates the difficulty. In April 2024, the Supreme Court rebuked Patanjali Ayurved for disparaging modern medicine in its campaigns. Even as the case was in court, the AYUSH ministry issued a notification deleting Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. Introduced to curb exaggerated claims, the rule required advertisements for Ayurvedic, Siddha, or Unani medicines to be pre-approved by State licensing authorities. For example, a company could not market a herbal pill as a cure for diabetes without evidence. With its deletion, prior scrutiny was no longer required. By August 2025, the Court closed the proceedings, holding that AYUSH advertisements did not need pre-approval.

The shift from reprimanding misleading advertisements to regulatory relaxation underscores a broader problem. The Constitution imposes a duty to cultivate scientific temper, but the institutions required to make it real remain weak and fragmented.

The continued reliance on alternative medicine shows how wide the gulf is between........

© hindustantimes