Bollywood actor Ajay Devgn has moved the Bombay High Court against a show-cause notice issued by the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration over his appearance in advertisements for Vimal Elaichi, arguing that the regulator acted arbitrarily by targeting him as an actor instead of the company behind the product.
A division bench of Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna is likely to hear Devgn's petition on November 4. The petition challenges both the show-cause notice itself and the constitutional validity of the provisions of the food safety regulations under which it was issued, according to reports of the filing. Devgn is represented by a team from DSK Legal led by partners Parag Khandhar and Chandrima Mitra.
At the centre of the dispute is the regulator's allegation that advertisements for Vimal Elaichi amount to surrogate promotion of Vimal Pan Masala, a chewable product that is banned in Maharashtra. Surrogate advertising, in the regulator's argument, occurs when a prohibited product is promoted indirectly through a permitted product that shares its brand name, packaging cues or advertising style, so that the audience associates the lawful advertisement with the banned item.
The Maharashtra FDA has alleged that the Vimal Elaichi campaign does exactly that, indirectly promoting pan masala products that the state has prohibited.
The notices were not issued to Devgn alone. In August, the FDA issued show-cause notices to three actors who had appeared in the Vimal Elaichi campaign: Devgn, Shah Rukh Khan and Tiger Shroff. The notices required them to explain their association with the brand and to provide details of their endorsement arrangements.
The regulator's case, as it has been described in its statements, is that the actors, by lending their faces to the campaign, participated in the promotion of a brand linked to gutkha and pan masala, products prohibited in Maharashtra.
Devgn's petition turns that logic on its head. He contends that the notice was arbitrarily served on him in his capacity as an actor, rather than on the manufacturing company responsible for the product and its marketing.
The argument draws a line between endorsing a product and manufacturing or selling it: an actor, in this view, performs in an advertisement created by others, and regulatory action for the content and strategy of that advertisement should fall on the company that commissioned it.
Reports of the petition also say Devgn has contended that he should be excused from the proceedings because he is no longer associated with the brand, a point that, if established, would raise questions about whether proceedings against a former endorser serve any regulatory purpose.
The regulatory process has meanwhile moved forward on a parallel track. Maharashtra FDA Commissioner Tukaram Mundhe said on Friday, October 30, that proceedings against Khan, Devgn and Shroff for allegedly violating state rules were complete. The department had concluded its investigation and found violations by the actors, he said, adding that the matter would be referred for adjudication next week.
The designated officer is proposing adjudication before the Joint Commissioner, who is the competent authority to decide the case. Mundhe confirmed that Devgn was the one actor who had approached the High Court, and made clear that Devgn's court challenge would not, by itself, halt the department's proceedings before the Joint Commissioner.
That parallel-track reality is important for understanding what the November 4 hearing can and cannot achieve. The High Court will consider whether the show-cause notice and the regulatory provisions behind it are legally sustainable. The adjudication before the Joint Commissioner will consider, on the facts, whether violations occurred and what consequences should follow under state rules.
The two processes can run side by side, and a stay or interim order from the High Court, if granted, would be needed to pause the adjudication. No such order had been reported at the time of writing.
The dispute has already travelled through another High Court. In August, the product's manufacturer, PB Agro LLP, the master licensee responsible for manufacturing and selling elaichi and pan masala products without tobacco under the Vimal brand, approached the Delhi High Court to quash the notices.
On September 14, the Delhi High Court declined to entertain that petition, ruling that it lacked territorial jurisdiction, since the controversy concerned actions by the Mumbai FDA relating to alleged activities in Maharashtra. The appropriate forum, the court observed, was the courts of the state where the regulator acted. Devgn's move to the Bombay High Court follows that logic, bringing the challenge to the jurisdiction where the proceedings originated.
The case sits within a much larger Indian debate about surrogate advertising, celebrity endorsement and public health. Pan masala and gutkha have been the subject of sustained regulatory action across states, driven by concerns about oral cancer and other health harms associated with chewing tobacco and areca-nut products.
Because direct advertising of many such products is restricted or banned, regulators have watched closely for campaigns that promote a brand through a nominally different product, such as cardamom, or elaichi, mouth fresheners, music CDs or other merchandise carrying the same brand name.
Celebrity endorsements add a further layer. Actors and sports stars lend credibility and reach to a campaign, and regulators argue that this reach is precisely why endorsers cannot be treated as passive participants. Endorsers counter that they are hired to perform, do not control product formulation or marketing strategy, and should not face the same liability as manufacturers.
Courts have grappled with this balance in different contexts, and the Devgn petition will add another data point, particularly on the question of whether a show-cause notice to an actor, as opposed to the company, is arbitrary.
The constitutional challenge to the food safety regulations adds a broader dimension. If Devgn argues that the provisions are vague or overbroad, the court will have to consider how much discretion regulators should have in deciding what counts as surrogate promotion, and what safeguards exist against that discretion being used selectively. A ruling that narrows the provisions could affect future cases beyond Vimal.
A ruling upholding them would strengthen the FDA's hand in pursuing endorsers in similar campaigns.
For Shah Rukh Khan and Tiger Shroff, who have not approached the court, the immediate path is adjudication. They responded to the show-cause notices and sought time for hearings, which the department granted, and their cases will now be considered by the Joint Commissioner.
The outcome of Devgn's petition could still affect them indirectly, if the High Court's reasoning on the legality of the notices or the regulations applies to the proceedings generally, but they have not sought that protection directly.
For the brand, the stakes are commercial as well as legal. Vimal Elaichi is sold as a cardamom-based mouth freshener, a lawful product in itself. The regulator's case depends on showing that its advertising, in context, functions as promotion for the banned pan masala variant.
The company's case depends on showing that the elaichi product stands on its own, with its own market and identity, and that sharing a brand name does not automatically make its advertising surrogate. That factual contest, about how consumers actually perceive the campaign, is likely to be central to both the adjudication and any court hearing.
The November 4 hearing will therefore be watched by more than film fans. Food regulators across states, advertising agencies, brand managers and celebrity management firms all have an interest in where the court draws the line between an endorser and a manufacturer, and between a lawful product campaign and surrogate promotion of a banned one. Devgn's petition asks the court to draw that line in favour of the performer.
The FDA's adjudication, proceeding in parallel, asks the Joint Commissioner to draw it in favour of the regulator. The two answers may not arrive at the same time, and the tension between them is part of what makes this case significant.
Until the hearing, the positions are clear. Devgn says the notice against him was arbitrary and the regulations behind it are constitutionally vulnerable. The FDA says its investigation is complete, violations were found, and adjudication will proceed next week regardless of the court challenge. The Bombay High Court will now decide whether the actor's challenge pauses, reshapes or leaves untouched the regulator's case.
(Reporting based on The Hindu and The Indian Express.)