Last Updated on February 28, 2026 by The Health Master

Objectionable Advertisements: Salient features of DMROA Act, 1954

A crucial piece of Indian drug laws that controls the promotion of pharmaceuticals and magical cures is the Drugs and Magical Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 (DMROA Act).

Follow us on WhtasApp Channel

The DMROA Act was enacted to safeguard consumers from fraudulent claims and ensure the safety and efficacy of medications in response to rising concerns about deceptive advertising for pharmaceutical goods and miraculous cures.

The Act created regulations highlighting the significance of accurate information and ethical marketing in the pharmaceutical sector through various advertisements.

Object and scope of the Act:

An act to control the advertisement of drugs in certain cases, to prohibit the advertisement for certain purposes of remedies alleged to possess magic qualities, and to provide for matters connected therewith.

The title of the Act also shows that it is directed against objectionable advertisements.

Historical context:

The Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, was created in the midst of India’s post-independence healthcare and pharmaceutical industries’ rapid growth.

Before the DMROA Act was passed, the market was swamped with deceptive ads offering medications and therapies that made miraculous cure claims for a variety of illnesses, frequently playing on customers’ vulnerabilities.

Such deceptive advertising not only endangered public health but also presented moral and ethical dilemmas.

The Indian government passed the DMROA Act in 1954 after seeing the necessity to control the promotion of pharmaceuticals and magical cures.

This law was a crucial step in protecting consumers from deceptive advertising and assuring the efficacy and safety of medications.

Click for Guidance documents for industry

Important legal provisions of the Act:

Section 2 of the Act

A careful perusal of section 2 of the Act is as follows:

• cl(a) defines advertisements
• cl (b) drugs, which include

(i) medicines for use of human beings and animals,

(ii) substances for use of diagnosis, treatment or prevention of diseases in human beings and animals,

(iii) articles other than food which- affect the organic functions of the body of human beings or animals and

(iv) articles intended for use as a component of any medicine, etc.,

• cl. (c) defines magic remedies to include a talisman, mantra, kavacha and other charms and
• cl (d) relates to the publication of any advertisement

Sec 3(d) provides for the prohibition of advertisement of certain drugs for the treatment of certain diseases and disorders as mentioned in the Schedule to the Act. There are presently 54 types of diseases mentioned in the schedule.

Savings:

Sec 14 : of the act provides certain conditions subject to which the provisions of the Act shall not apply.

Exemptions:

Sec 15: The power to exempt from application of the Act is with the Central Govt.

Under these powers the Govt issued a notification on 29^th May 1967 excluding a class of advertisements (subject to conditions) from the provisions of Sec 3, (c) and (d).

So far five types of advertisements have been excluded from the said provisions.

It is also pertinent to note here that while the provisions of the DMROA are applicable to Drugs, Ayurvedic drugs, Medical Devices, Machines etc, the provisions of Rule 106 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act read with Schedule J are related to only Drugs.

Schedule J mentions 51 types of diseases and ailments that a drug may not purport to prevent or cure or make a claim to prevent or cure.

DMRAA’s main goal was to stop the spread of deceptive and inaccurate marketing for pharmaceuticals and magical cures.

The measure attempted to accomplish many significant objectives:

Consumer Protection

DMRAA sought to protect consumer interests by ensuring that they were given accurate and trustworthy information on medicines and treatments. Consumers may make ill-informed and perhaps hazardous healthcare decisions as a result of misleading advertising.

Public Health

The statute aimed to safeguard the public’s health by restricting the promotion of medications and magical cures. Inaccurate statements about the effectiveness of some goods may cause people to skip getting the required medical care, which might harm their health.

Regulation of Pharmaceutical Industry

DMRAA gave the pharmaceutical sector a foundation by setting moral guidelines for advertising and understanding their rights with restrictions.

Structured Legal Framework Overview:

To accomplish its goals, the DMROA Act adopted a number of significant statutes and regulations, which are as follows:

I. PROHIBITION OF OBJECTIONABLE ADVERTISEMENTS

(Sections 3, 4 & 5)

• Prohibits advertisements relating to Scheduled diseases and conditions
• Bans false, misleading, or exaggerated claims
• Restricts promotion of magic or supernatural remedies
• Prohibits advertisements guaranteeing pregnancy or infertility cures

Objective: Protection of public health and prevention of exploitation.

II. REGULATION & CONTROL MECHANISM

• Establishes statutory control over drug advertisements
• Empowers authorities to examine and restrict objectionable content
• Prevents deceptive medical and therapeutic marketing practices

Objective: Ensure ethical and responsible pharmaceutical advertising.

III. PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION

(Section 7)

First Conviction:

• Up to 6 months imprisonment
• Fine or both

Subsequent Conviction:

• Up to 1 year imprisonment
• Fine or both

Objective: Create deterrence against misleading medical advertisements.

IV. UPDATING THE SCHEDULE (Consultative Mechanism)

• Central Government empowered to amend list of diseases

Mandatory consultation with:

• Drugs Technical Advisory Board
• Experts in Ayurveda/Unani systems (where required)
• DTAB constituted under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940

Objective: Ensure scientific and technical oversight.

V. ENFORCEMENT POWERS

(Section 8)

• Authorized Gazetted Officers empowered
• Power to enter and search premises
• Authority to seize objectionable advertisements
• Examination of relevant records

Objective: Effective statutory enforcement

Recent initiatives

MoU with ASCI (Modern Mechanism):

While not explicitly in the 1954 act itself, the Ministry of AYUSH has established a mechanism with the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) to monitor and review AYUSH-related advertisements in print and on TV to identify contraventions of the Drug and Magic Remedies Act.

GAMA Portal:

The Department of Consumer Affairs has established an online system called GAMA (Grievances Against Misleading Advertisements) for registering public complaints, which are then checked for compliance with the Act.

Click here for latest notifications on DMROA

Case Laws:

Hamdard Dawakhana (Wakf) Lal v. Union of India And Others (1960 AIR 554, 1960 SCR (2) 671

This was a landmark judgment in the history of DMROA. The case is distinctive because it poses a fresh question about the nature of ads, something that has never been addressed in a Supreme Court case before.

Subtly implying that ads intended to increase sales of goods should be characterized as encouraging trade and commerce, the Court’s position on this matter seems acceptable.

They ought to be covered by Article 19(1)(g) as a result. Advertising that promotes social, political, economic, or literary concepts is likely to fall under Article 19(1)(a) or 19(1)(g), according to the Supreme Court itself.

The policy behind the Act, observed the Supreme Court, is that medication should be on the advice of qualified medical practitioners.

Indian Medical Association (IMA) Union of India (2024-2025):

The Supreme Court has taken a stern view of misleading advertisements for AYUSH (Ayurveda, Yoga, Unani, Siddha, and Homeopathy) medicines, which are often promoted as curing diseases listed in the schedule of the DMROA Act.

Strict Enforcement: On March 26, 2025, the Supreme Court issued directions to state governments to strictly enforce the Act, citing that the 70-year-old law was not being properly implemented.

Grievance Mechanism: The Court ordered state authorities to set up a dedicated mechanism within two months to handle complaints regarding misleading ads.

Pre-approval Requirement: While the Court previously stayed Rule 170 (which required pre-approval of ads), it has allowed the litigation to proceed to ensure companies cannot make false claims.

Recent High Court Decisions

M/S. Healing Hastha Herbal Concepts v. State of Andhra Pradesh (August 2025): The Andhra Pradesh High Court reviewed, in a recently reported case, if a product (credi sol aqueous allergen extract) violated Section 3(d) regarding misleading claims, highlighting the strict scrutiny of herbal product packaging.

M/S. Dharma Pharmacy Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu (August 2022/2024): The Madras High Court clarified that a Drugs Inspector is authorized to act under the Special Act (DMRA).

Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs State of Uttarakhand (Feb 2024): A case involving both the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) and the DMROA, highlighting the criminal liabilities for misleading, non-scientific, or magical claims.

Next: Part-2 ….coming soon