The Delhi High Court is set to decide a crucial preliminary question in the Vimal Elaichi advertising dispute: whether it has the territorial jurisdiction to hear a challenge to show-cause notices issued by the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration to three high-profile brand ambassadors. The notices, sent to Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff, allege that advertisements for Vimal Elaichi amount to surrogate promotion of Vimal Pan Masala, a product prohibited in Maharashtra. The court’s ruling will determine the forum in which the larger dispute proceeds.
Background to the Notices
On August 11, 2026, the Maharashtra FDA issued show-cause notices to the three actors in connection with their appearance in advertisements for Vimal Elaichi. The regulator’s assessment was that the campaign, including its presentation, use of the Vimal name and overall context, appeared to promote the broader Vimal brand, which is primarily associated with pan masala. Pan masala is prohibited for manufacture, storage, distribution and sale in Maharashtra under a state order.
The notices directed the actors to immediately discontinue participation in the advertisements, remove related promotional content from their official social media handles, websites and other digital platforms under their control, and refrain from any further assistance in broadcasting or promoting the material. They were also asked to provide documentation demonstrating that Vimal Elaichi is distinct from the banned pan masala products.
The advertisements in question had been in circulation earlier, with the actors featuring as brand ambassadors for the elaichi (cardamom) product marketed under the Vimal name.
The Company’s Challenge in Delhi
PB Agro LLP, the master licensee responsible for the manufacture and sale of elaichi and non-tobacco pan masala under the Vimal brand, approached the Delhi High Court seeking to quash the notices. The company argued that the regulatory action was directed solely at the celebrity endorsers even though any adverse outcome would cause it irreparable commercial harm. It contended that it was not given an opportunity to be heard before the notices were issued.
PB Agro further maintained that the Maharashtra FDA lacked jurisdiction to issue directions requiring the halt of the advertisement campaign. On the substantive allegation of surrogate advertising, the company asserted that the claims were baseless. It stated that Vimal pan masala has not been manufactured or sold in Maharashtra since 2001 and noted that pan masala containing tobacco has been barred nationwide by the Supreme Court since 2013.
The petition emphasised that the company’s endorsement agreements with the actors require compliance with applicable laws and that the elaichi product is a legitimate, independent offering.
The Jurisdictional Question Before the Court
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma heard arguments on the preliminary issue of whether the Delhi High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the challenge. The order on this point was reserved and is scheduled for pronouncement. The court has not examined the merits of the surrogate advertising allegations at this stage.
The jurisdiction question is significant. Regulatory action originated in Maharashtra and the notices were issued by a state authority there. PB Agro has chosen to litigate in Delhi. The High Court’s decision will determine whether the matter remains in Delhi or must be pursued in a different forum, most likely in Maharashtra.
What Surrogate Advertising Means in This Context
Surrogate advertising refers to the indirect promotion of a restricted or prohibited product through the advertising of a different, permissible product that shares branding, imagery or associations. Indian regulations, particularly around tobacco and related products, have long sought to curb such practices. Pan masala and gutkha restrictions in various states, combined with national rules on tobacco advertising, have made brand-extension advertising a recurring area of regulatory scrutiny.
In the present case, the Maharashtra FDA’s position is that the Vimal Elaichi campaign creates or reinforces an association with the Vimal pan masala brand identity. The company’s position is that the elaichi product is distinct, lawfully marketed, and not a vehicle for promoting a banned item.
Broader Implications
The dispute sits at the intersection of celebrity endorsement, brand strategy and state-level public health regulation. Celebrity participation in advertising carries both commercial value and potential regulatory exposure when products fall near restricted categories. For companies operating across multiple states with differing rules on pan masala and related items, consistent national and state compliance remains a complex challenge.
The outcome of the jurisdiction ruling will shape the immediate procedural path. If the Delhi High Court holds that it can hear the matter, the challenge to the notices will proceed there. If it declines jurisdiction, PB Agro would need to pursue remedies in the appropriate forum. Either way, the underlying questions about the character of the advertisement and the scope of the regulator’s powers are likely to be contested further.
A Waiting Decision
The Delhi High Court’s order on the maintainability of the petition is expected to provide clarity on the next procedural steps. Until the jurisdictional issue is settled, the substantive debate over whether the Vimal Elaichi campaign constitutes surrogate advertising remains in abeyance before the courts.
The case highlights the continuing tension between creative brand marketing, the commercial use of star power, and regulatory efforts to prevent the indirect promotion of products restricted on public health grounds. How the courts ultimately resolve both the forum question and the merits will be watched closely by advertisers, brand owners and regulators alike.
Read more – huggymonster.com