Vimal Elaichi maker PB Agro has approached the Delhi High Court seeking to quash show-cause notices issued by the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to actors Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff over their advertisement for the cardamom product. The regulator has alleged that the campaign amounts to surrogate promotion of Vimal Pan Masala, a chewable product prohibited in Maharashtra, and directed the actors to provide documents showing that Vimal Elaichi is distinct from the banned product.
PB Agro has challenged the FDA’s authority to halt the campaign, arguing that it was not itself served the August 11 notice or given an opportunity to be heard. The company has also maintained that Vimal Pan Masala has not been manufactured or sold in Maharashtra since 2001. The Delhi High Court, however, has not yet ruled on the merits of the dispute and has reserved its order on whether it has territorial jurisdiction to hear the petition.
Why The Company Has Challenged The Notices
The dispute centres on the way Vimal Elaichi is advertised and whether the branding indirectly promotes Vimal Pan Masala. Maharashtra FDA notices to Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff reportedly asked them to explain their involvement in the campaign and provide evidence that the advertised elaichi product is separate from the pan masala products associated with the brand.
The regulator also sought a halt to the promotional campaign and removal of related material from digital platforms. PB Agro has argued that it engages reputed actors specifically to promote the cardamom product and that its endorsement agreements and advertising campaign comply with applicable laws. Its counsel further submitted that the company itself stood to suffer if the campaign was stopped, yet it was not given an opportunity to present its case.
Long Debate Around Celebrity Endorsements
The case has revived wider concerns around surrogate advertising, in which a brand associated with a restricted or harmful product promotes another product using the same name, branding or imagery. Such advertising can keep a prohibited product’s identity visible even when direct promotion is restricted. The Vimal controversy is not new. In 2022, Akshay Kumar stepped away from Vimal Elaichi’s endorsement after facing public criticism. He apologised to fans and said he would be more mindful of his future choices, while announcing that he would donate his endorsement fee to a worthy cause.
The current case also raises an important legal question over jurisdiction. Counsel for the Centre and the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) argued that the matter should have been brought before the Bombay High Court because the challenged notice was issued by the Maharashtra government. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma has reserved her order on this preliminary issue. The court’s decision on jurisdiction will determine whether the Delhi High Court can proceed to examine the company’s substantive challenge.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
Celebrity endorsements carry influence far beyond a conventional advertisement, particularly when the product sits close to a category associated with serious public-health concerns. At the same time, regulatory action must be transparent, fair and based on clear evidence, while companies and public figures should be given a meaningful opportunity to respond.
The larger conversation should not become a battle between regulators, brands, celebrities and consumers; instead, it should encourage clearer advertising standards and greater responsibility from everyone involved. If an advertisement legally promotes one product but may still create an association with a harmful one, where should the line be drawn, and what responsibility should celebrities carry when lending their influence to such campaigns?
