Surrogate Advertising In Restricted Sectors: An Analysis With Special Reference To Rule 170 Of The Drugs & Cosmetics Rules

Abstract

Surrogate advertising has surfaced as an eminent challenge in India, particularly in sectors where explicit advertising of sensitive products is restricted. By promoting substitute goods, companies announce products similar as alcohol, tobacco, and more lately, drugs. In the medicinal and AYUSH sectors, this practice has contributed to a swell of misleading remedial claims, exploiting consumer vulnerabilities. In its response, Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 was introduced in 2018 as a targeted measure to regulate announcements of Ayurvedic, Siddha, and Unani(ASU) medicines. By requiring a Unique Identification Number by the companies before promoting such drugs, it created a preventative medium to prevent the surrogate content into the public sphere. This paper critically examines the validity of Rule 170 and its role in preventing surrogate advertising with a direct focus on public health sector. This Rule, has remained the subject of sustained controversy ever since its insertion through the Eleventh Amendment in 2018. It situates the discussion within an indigenous frame, analyzing Article 14,19,21, and 47, while drawing on crucial judicial pronouncements similar as Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India and the 2025 Supreme Court ruling in Indian Medical Association v. Union of India which upheld the deletion of the said Rule. The study then infers that the future of drug advertising regulation in India lies in building a unified and comprehensive framework that can effectively counter surrogate practices across all medical systems while maintaining an environment conducive to fair competition and legitimate trade.