Populism vs Scientific Temper: Global Impacts

Constitutional Populism and the Erosion of Scientific Temper: Implications for Global Governance

Syllabus:

GS Paper – 2: Government Policies & Interventions, Issues Relating to Development

Why in the News?

The Supreme Court’s decision in 2025 to end proceedings against Patanjali Ayurved’s misleading advertisements, following the AYUSH Ministry’s repeal of Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, has sparked debate over the State’s failure to uphold Article 51A(h)—the constitutional duty to promote scientific temper among citizens. This development raises concerns about India’s role in addressing global governance challenges and its commitment to international cooperation in an increasingly multipolar world.

Constitutional Duty and Its Dilution

• Fundamental Duty: Article 51A(h) of the Constitution enjoins every citizen to develop scientific temper, humanism, and the spirit of inquiry and reform—a collective constitutional vision of rational citizenship that aligns with global governance principles.
• Symbolic Commitment: However, this duty often exists merely as symbolic constitutionalism—ambitious in text but weak in implementation due to inadequate institutions and regulation, reflecting broader challenges in global governance institutions.
• Judicial Reproach: In April 2024, the Supreme Court reprimanded Patanjali Ayurved for disparaging modern medicine through misleading advertisements, highlighting the need for stronger international cooperation in regulating health claims.
• Regulatory Rollback: Instead of reinforcing safeguards, the AYUSH Ministry deleted Rule 170, which earlier required pre-approval of advertisements for Ayurvedic, Siddha, or Unani medicines by State licensing authorities, potentially undermining India’s position in the international system of health governance.
• Constitutional Contradiction: This move exposed the disparity between constitutional ideals and state actions, where the duty to cultivate scientific temper is rendered aspirational rather than actionable, mirroring global governance challenges faced by many emerging economies.

Constitutional and Legal References

• Article 51A(h): Fundamental Duty – To develop scientific temper, humanism, and the spirit of inquiry and reform.
• Rule 170 (Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945): Mandated pre-approval of AYUSH advertisements—deleted in 2024 by the AYUSH Ministry.
• Supreme Court Case (2024–25): Patanjali Ayurved vs Indian Medical Association—Court rebuked misleading advertisements, but later allowed withdrawal of scrutiny.
• Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954: Prohibits false claims of miracle cures for chronic diseases.
• Consumer Protection Act, 2019: Established Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) to curb misleading advertisements.
• AYUSH Ministry (2014): Promotes Ayurveda, Yoga, Unani, Siddha, and Homeopathy, now overseeing policy for traditional medicine.
• WHO Global Centre for Traditional Medicine (2022): Located in Gujarat—supports research and standardization of traditional medicine.
• Constitutional Philosophy: Directive vs. Symbolic Duties—Duties under Article 51A require institutional backing for real effect, reflecting the need for institutional reform in global governance.
• Global Parallel: Nations like the UK, USA, and Japan integrate traditional medicine only through scientific validation frameworks, demonstrating international cooperation in health governance.
• Ethical Foundation: Cultivation of scientific temper underpins democracy, informed citizenship, and rational public policy, essential for addressing global governance challenges.

The Case of Rule 170 and Its Implications

• Rule 170 Explained: Introduced in 2020, it mandated that no traditional medicine could be advertised as a cure for diseases like diabetes or hypertension without prior scrutiny and evidence.
• Impact of Deletion: Its removal in 2024 meant advertisements for AYUSH products no longer required pre-approval, leading to unchecked marketing of unverified claims, potentially affecting India’s standing in the international community.
• Judicial Closure: By August 2025, the Supreme Court closed the case, holding that AYUSH ads need no prior sanction—weakening evidence-based medical accountability and raising questions about collective action in health governance.
• Regulatory Vacuum: This reflects a broader abdication of state responsibility—delegating critical consumer protection tasks to individuals rather than enforcing systemic oversight, a trend observed in many multilateral institutions.
• Resulting Danger: Citizens are left to navigate false health claims without institutional mechanisms ensuring evidence-based healthcare, a challenge that extends beyond national borders in our interconnected world.

Symbolic Constitutionalism and Institutional Failure

• Concept Defined: Symbolic constitutionalism describes the phenomenon where constitutions promise transformative ideals but fail to create institutions capable of delivering them, mirroring challenges in global governance institutions.
• Article 51A(h) in Practice: Though noble, it lacks enforceable obligations or dedicated bodies to promote scientific awareness, making it a moral directive rather than a practical tool, similar to challenges faced in international law implementation.
• State Abdication: Instead of building public reasoning institutions, the State retreats—placing the burden of discernment on individuals, a trend that undermines collective action on global issues.
• Weak Enforcement: Regulatory bodies like the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) and AYUSH Ministry remain fragmented and slow in acting against misleading claims, reflecting broader institutional reform needs in global governance.
• Constitutional Consequence: This weak enforcement undermines rational inquiry, allowing pseudoscience and superstition to flourish under the guise of cultural legitimacy, potentially impacting India’s role in addressing global power shifts.

Fragmented Legal and Regulatory Landscape

• Consumer Protection Reliance: With Rule 170 gone, consumer law is now the primary barrier against false claims, through the CCPA’s 2022 guidelines that prohibit deceptive health ads.
• Retrospective Action: Enforcement has been sporadic and after harm occurs, lacking real-time preventive oversight, a challenge also seen in many multilateral institutions.
• Stalled Reforms: The Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, meant to curb false claims of miracle cures, has not been updated for decades.
• Institutional Fragmentation: The overlapping jurisdictions of AYUSH, Health Ministry, and CCPA have created a regulatory maze instead of clarity, reflecting the need for better coordination in global governance mechanisms.
• Public Impact: In the absence of a coherent policy, misinformation spreads unchecked, particularly in the health sector where scientific validation is crucial, posing challenges to international cooperation in health governance.

Popular Trust and the Pull of Alternative Medicine

• AYUSH Awareness: Surveys reveal nearly 100% awareness of AYUSH systems, with 46% of rural and 53% of urban households using alternative medicine annually.
• Access and Affordability: Reliance on AYUSH is driven by limited healthcare access, overcrowded public hospitals, and expensive private care—making alternatives appear more approachable.
• Trust and Familiarity: Traditional practitioners often provide personalized attention, fostering cultural trust and psychological comfort absent in rushed clinical settings.
• State Endorsement: Institutions like the Ministry of AYUSH and the WHO Global Centre for Traditional Medicine (GCTM) reinforce public faith in unverified treatments.
• Contradictory Signals: Citizens face a paradox—the Constitution calls for scientific reasoning, while the State legitimizes non-evidence-based practices, reflecting broader tensions in global governance.

Challenges

• Regulatory Ambiguity: Absence of clear demarcation between scientifically validated and traditional treatments creates scope for misuse and misinformation.
• Weak Enforcement: Bodies like CCPA and AYUSH Ministry lack manpower and resources to monitor thousands of misleading advertisements.
• Economic Pressures: Limited healthcare infrastructure and out-of-pocket medical costs push citizens towards cheaper, unverified alternatives.
• Cultural Populism: Political rhetoric often romanticizes traditional systems as inherently Indian, discouraging critical scrutiny in the name of nationalism.
• Public Awareness Gap: Lack of scientific literacy and public health education prevents citizens from distinguishing between evidence-based care and pseudoscience.
• Judicial Inconsistency: The closure of proceedings despite earlier judicial censure weakens institutional accountability.
• Fragmented Laws: Outdated legislations like the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act (1954) remain ill-equipped for the digital age of medical advertising.
• Institutional Capture: Commercial interests influence policy-making, prioritizing economic gains over scientific regulation.
• Moral vs. Legal Duty: Article 51A(h) remains non-justiciable, lacking statutory backing for enforcement.
• Educational Gaps: Absence of scientific reasoning modules in schools limits early cultivation of rational temper.

Way Forward

• Reinstate Regulatory Oversight: Revive and strengthen Rule 170 to ensure pre-verification of medical claims, especially under AYUSH systems.
• Strengthen Legal Framework: Modernize the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act (1954) to address digital health misinformation and ensure punitive deterrence.
• Promote Scientific Education: Introduce critical thinking and evidence-based reasoning in school curricula to fulfill Article 51A(h) in practice.
• Empower Regulators: Equip CCPA, FSSAI, and AYUSH regulators with adequate resources for real-time surveillance of misleading claims.
• Public Health Investment: Expand affordable and accessible healthcare to reduce reliance on unverified alternatives.
• Rational Communication: Encourage science communicators, doctors, and educators to promote public trust in evidence-based medicine.
• Balanced Integration: Traditional medicine can be integrated only through scientific validation and clinical trials, not blind endorsement.
• Judicial Vigilance: The judiciary must ensure constitutional duties translate into institutional accountability, not symbolic gestures.
• Media Accountability: Mandate transparency in health product advertisements through independent review boards.
• Constitutional Realignment: Governments should treat Article 51A(h) not as a moral aspiration but a governance principle, aligning policy with reason and evidence.

Conclusion

The weakening of regulatory safeguards and rise of constitutional populism threaten India’s scientific temper—a constitutional cornerstone of rational democracy. Without institutional commitment, Article 51A(h) risks remaining symbolic. Upholding it demands not just citizen awareness but State accountability, ensuring science and evidence guide governance in both policy and practice. This challenge reflects broader global governance issues, highlighting the need for stronger international cooperation and institutional reform to address the democratic deficit in global governance mechanisms. As India navigates these domestic challenges, its approach will have implications for its role in shaping the future of global governance in a multipolar world.

Source : HT

Mains Practice Question

“Discuss how constitutional populism and weak regulatory frameworks undermine the constitutional duty to promote scientific temper in India. How can the State strengthen institutions and public trust in evidence-based policymaking to realize the mandate of Article 51A(h)?”