Elaichi or pan masala? The legal question behind Ajay Devgn’s plea

In the Vimal Elaichi advertisements, Ajay Devgn, Shah Rukh Khan and Tiger Shroff appeared together. The product being endorsed was cardamom. But Maharashtra's Food and Drug Administration (FDA) says the advertisements also promoted Vimal Pan Masala, a product banned in the state. The difference between the product shown in an advertisement and the brand it promotes has now become a legal issue before the Bombay High Court.

Devgn has challenged the FDA’s show-cause notice, arguing that the authorities acted arbitrarily by proceeding against him as an actor rather than against the company behind the product and the advertisement. He has also reportedly questioned the constitutional validity of the regulatory provisions invoked against him.

Also read | Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn, Tiger Shroff get FDA notices over Vimal Elaichi ad

Preliminary proceedings against Devgn, Khan and Shroff are over, and the cases would move to adjudication, FDA Commissioner Tukaram Mundhe said on Friday, October 30. A Division Bench headed by Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi is expected to hear Devgn’s petition on November 4.

Why is the Vimal Elaichi advertisement controversial?

The controversy surrounds surrogate advertising, which uses advertisements for one product to promote another whose advertising is banned or restricted. A company linked to a banned product may advertise cardamom or mineral water under a familiar brand name, keeping the prohibited product in the consumer’s mind.

Maharashtra has renewed its ban on gutkha, pan masala and specified tobacco and areca nut products for several years. Its latest prohibition order, dated July 13, 2026, came into effect on July 20 for one year. The state issued it under Section 30(2)(a) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, which empowers the Food Safety Commissioner to prohibit specified food articles in the interest of public health.

In show-cause notice issued on August 11, the FDA alleged that the presentation and branding of Vimal Elaichi advertisements indirectly promoted the banned pan masala brand. The company maintains that Vimal Elaichi is an independently marketable cardamom product. Its availability matters, but the FDA will also have to examine the campaign’s purpose and overall impression, including its intended audience and the identity it reinforces.

Is surrogate advertising banned in India?

The Central Consumer Protection Authority’s 2022 guidelines prohibit advertisements that indirectly promote products whose advertising is restricted. Clause 6 mentions familiar brand names, logos, colours and presentations as possible indicators of surrogate promotion.

But there is an important qualification: merely using a brand name shared with a prohibited product does not make an advertisement unlawful, provided it is otherwise unobjectionable. The regulator must therefore establish more than the mere fact that cardamom and pan masala are sold under the Vimal name. The wording, visual presentation and context of the advertisement, alongside the independent sale of the permitted product, would become important evidence.

Can the advertisement be held against an actor?

The Maharashtra FDA has acted under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. Section 24 prohibits misleading food advertisements, while Section 53 provides for a penalty of up to ₹10 lakh for anyone who publishes, or is a party to the publication of, an advertisement that falsely describes food or misleads consumers about its nature, substance or quality.

The phrase ‘party to the publication’ may cover participants beyond the manufacturer. Section 53 also states that accurately describing the composition of a food product does not, by itself, prevent a finding of misleading advertising. How that provision applies to alleged surrogate promotion is central to the FDA’s case.

The Supreme Court has already emphasised endorsers’ responsibility. In its May 7, 2024 order in Indian Medical Assocation v Union of India, arising from misleading Patanjali advertisements, it held that advertisers and endorsers were equally responsible for false and misleading advertisements. The Court referred to the due-diligence requirements for celebrities and influencers under the 2022 guidelines. It also recognised that the food-safety authority could initiate action against misleading advertisements on its own, without waiting for a complaint. That principle makes the extent of Devgn’s participation relevant, although liability under Section 53 must still be established on the facts.

Also read | Tukaram Mundhe: The IAS officer behind Maharashtra’s food safety crackdown

The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provides a separate framework. Under Section 21, the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) can penalise endorsers of misleading advertisements by up to ₹10 lakh for a first contravention and ₹50 lakh for subsequent ones, and bar them from endorsements for up to one year or, for repeat violations, three years. However, the FDA proceedings fall under food-safety law.

Can a celebrity trust what the manufacturer says?

PB Agro LLP, the master licensee of Vimal Elaichi, had itself approached the Delhi High Court to quash the Maharashtra FDA notices. Its submissions, recorded in the September 14,2026 judgment, said its agreements assured the celebrity endorsers that the product was lawful, fit for consumption and compliant with advertising regulations. The actors, it argued, had agreed to participate on the strength of those assurances. PB Agro also complained that notices addressed to the actors effectively affected its advertising campaign, although it had received no notice itself.

Section 21(5) of the Consumer Protection Act protects an endorser from specified CCPA penalties if it exercised due diligence to verify the advertisement’s claims. Such contractual assurances may be relevant, but the FDA’s allegation concerns the larger message conveyed through the branding, rather than the composition of the cardamom. Whether the assurance also addressed indirect promotion of another product remains a question of fact.

Have courts dealt surrogate advertising before?

In Mahesh Bhatt and Kasturi & Sons v Union of India (2008), a Delhi High Court Division Bench upheld restrictions on indirect tobacco advertising. It recognised that surrogate advertising could undermine the statutory prohibition if the law covered only direct promotion. The Bench considered challenges brought by filmmaker Mahesh Bhatt and newspaper publisher Kasturi & Sons to Section 5 of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act. The judgment is relevant to the present dispute, although it arose under the tobacco-control legislation.

A more immediate precedent concerns Vimal Elaichi itself. In Directorate General of Health Services v Som Pan Product, decided on January 24, 2024, Justice Dharmesh Sharma upheld interim protection for companies facing regulatory action under the tobacco-control law. He observed that the use of a shared brand name could not automatically establish surrogate promotion; that allegation needed evidence at trial. The connected appeals also concerned Dilbagh, another brand used for products under scrutiny by the tobacco-control authorities. The Court expressly left the merits undecided.

In the more recent PB Agro proceedings, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma dismissed the company’s petition on September 14 because the Maharashtra notices concerned alleged violations in that state. She did not decide the merits, holding that courts in Maharashtra were the appropriate forum to challenge notices issued by the state authorities. Her judgment also recorded separate CCPA proceedings over the advertising campaign, raising the question of how the central and state regulators’ powers operate alongside each other.

What about the constitutional right to advertise?

In Tata Press Ltd v Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd (1995), the Supreme Court recognised commercial advertising as protected speech under Article 19(1)(a). The Delhi High Court’s Mahesh Bhatt judgment, however, recognised the public-health justification for restrictions on indirect tobacco advertising. The significance of Devgn’s reported constitutional challenge will depend on the precise provisions questioned and the grounds raised against them.

What happens next?

The Bombay High Court will consider whether Devgn has made out a case for intervention against the FDA proceedings. He is also said to have claimed that he is no longer associated with the brand, though his earlier participation will have to be assessed on its own facts.

Also read | Karnataka imposes one-year ban on gutkha and tobacco-based pan masala

For the regulator, the challenge is to prove when an advertisement for a permitted product indirectly promotes a prohibited one. For endorsers, the court may clarify what verification they need before lending their names and public credibility to such a campaign. Its ruling may also indicate what evidence is needed to attract liability under the food-safety law.