The Delhi High Court on September 14 dismissed a plea by PB Agro LLP, the master licensee of Vimal Elaichi, challenging Maharashtra FDA show-cause notices issued to Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff over their endorsement of a Vimal Elaichi advertisement.
Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma held that Delhi lacked territorial jurisdiction and said Maharashtra courts were the more appropriate and convenient forum under the doctrine of forum conveniens. The court did not decide whether the advertisement amounted to surrogate promotion of pan masala.
The Maharashtra FDA had alleged that the campaign could indirectly promote Vimal Pan Masala, a product prohibited in Maharashtra, and had asked the actors to stop participating in the campaign, remove promotional material and explain their due diligence.
FDA Commissioner Tukaram Mundhe has maintained that celebrity endorsers also carry responsibility under food-safety advertising rules, while PB Agro has disputed the regulator’s action and argued that Vimal Elaichi is a distinct cardamom product.
Delhi HC Rejects Jurisdiction Plea
The legal battle before the Delhi High Court centred on where the dispute should be heard, rather than whether the Vimal Elaichi advertisement was legally a surrogate advertisement. PB Agro argued that the Delhi court could hear its challenge because the company operates from Delhi, the campaign was allegedly conceived and managed there, and payments to the celebrity endorsers were made from the capital.
It also pointed to the presence of the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) and Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) in Delhi. The court rejected these grounds, noting that the August 11 show-cause notice was independently issued by the FDA’s Greater Mumbai Division under the powers of the Maharashtra government and was addressed to the three actors, who are Mumbai residents.
Justice Sharma said the mere fact that a company has an office in Delhi does not mean every regulatory action taken by another state authority can be challenged before the Delhi High Court. The court also said the presence of FSSAI in Delhi could not confer jurisdiction because there was no material showing that the central authority had directed the Maharashtra FDA to issue the notice.
What The FDA Had Alleged
The Maharashtra FDA issued the nine-page show-cause notice on August 11, alleging that the Vimal Elaichi advertisement could amount to indirect or surrogate promotion of Vimal Pan Masala, which the regulator described as prohibited in Maharashtra.
The notice said the use of the “VIMAL” brand in an elaichi advertisement appeared to create an association with the pan masala brand. It cited Section 24 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, relating to misleading advertisements, and Section 53, under which publication or participation in a misleading food advertisement can attract a penalty of up to ₹10 lakh.
The actors were asked to discontinue their participation, remove promotional material from their official social media accounts and other platforms, and provide endorsement agreements, campaign briefs and details of the due diligence undertaken before accepting the campaign.
They were also asked to clarify whether Vimal Elaichi was an independent product or could be viewed as a surrogate communication for Vimal Pan Masala or tobacco-related products.
Maharashtra FDA Commissioner Tukaram Mundhe has defended the notices amid criticism over the decision to proceed against high-profile actors. He said the action was not about targeting celebrities for publicity and argued that the rules apply to promoters as well as advertisers.
“The responsibility is cast upon those who endorse it, including its implied meaning,” Mundhe said, adding that endorsers have a responsibility to ensure that their promotions comply with FSSAI norms. He also said manufacturers, sellers and endorsers can face action where the rules are violated.
The Dispute Moves To Maharashtra
PB Agro had challenged the FDA action on several grounds. It argued that the notice was issued to the three actors rather than to the company, despite the campaign affecting its business, and said it had not been given an opportunity to present its case.
The company also disputed the regulator’s allegation of surrogate advertising, contending that Vimal Pan Masala had not been manufactured or sold in Maharashtra since 2001. It further argued that pan masala containing tobacco had already been prohibited nationwide following a 2013 Supreme Court ruling.
The Centre and CCPA opposed the maintainability of the Delhi petition, arguing that a challenge to an action by the Maharashtra government should be brought before the Bombay High Court.
The Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed PB Agro’s petition without examining the merits of its challenge. Justice Sharma specifically held that Maharashtra was the more appropriate and convenient forum because the disputed notice originated with the Maharashtra FDA and concerned alleged violations connected to the state.
The ruling therefore does not establish that SRK, Ajay Devgn or Tiger Shroff illegally promoted pan masala, nor does it clear them of the allegations. It only means that the Delhi High Court will not decide those substantive questions in this petition. PB Agro remains free to pursue its grievances before the appropriate court in Maharashtra.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
The case raises an important question about the responsibility that comes with celebrity influence. Advertising is not merely about selling a product; when millions of people associate a celebrity with a brand, the message can have a much wider social impact.
At the same time, allegations should not be treated as established wrongdoing before the concerned authority or court decides them. The Delhi HC has made its position clear on jurisdiction, while leaving the central question of surrogate advertising open. A fair process now requires the regulator, the company and the endorsers to present their evidence before the appropriate forum, without trial by social media.
Also read: US Russia Sanctions Bill: India Named In 100% Tariff Amendment As House Debate Intensifies
