Bollywood actor Ajay Devgn has formally moved the Bombay High Court to challenge a show-cause notice issued by the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regarding his involvement in advertising campaigns for the brand ‘Vimal Elaichi’. The actor’s petition, which contests the constitutional validity and procedural fairness of the regulatory action, is scheduled to be heard by a division bench comprising Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna on November 4. This development marks a significant escalation in the ongoing friction between the state’s food safety regulators and high-profile brand ambassadors over what the authorities characterize as surrogate promotion.

The legal challenge arises from notices served to the actor by the state FDA, which allege that the advertisements for ‘Vimal Elaichi’ function as a tactical, indirect promotion—commonly known as surrogate advertising—for ‘Vimal Pan Masala’, a product that is prohibited within the state of Maharashtra. The FDA’s stance is that the brand identity associated with the mouth freshener is intrinsically linked to the sale of gutkha and other pan masala products, which have been banned due to public health concerns. Following the issuance of these notices, the department escalated its scrutiny, also targeting other prominent actors including Shah Rukh Khan and Tiger Shroff, who have similarly appeared in the promotional material.

Contesting Regulatory Liability and Surrogate Claims

In his petition to the Bombay High Court, Ajay Devgn has raised fundamental questions regarding the appropriateness of targeting individual actors for the marketing practices of a manufacturing entity. A central pillar of his argument is that the issuance of the show-cause notice was arbitrary and structurally flawed, as it was directed toward him personally rather than the parent company, PB Agro, which manufactures and markets the products. The actor maintains that as a brand ambassador, he is not the party responsible for the regulatory compliance of the product’s advertising campaign, and therefore, the legal burden for alleged violations of food safety and advertising standards should fall on the manufacturer.

The Maharashtra FDA, however, has maintained a firm stance throughout the proceedings. Commissioner Tukaram Mundhe recently announced that the department has finalized its investigations into the conduct of the actors involved, having concluded that their participation in the campaign constitutes a violation of state regulations. Commissioner Mundhe indicated that the administrative proceedings initiated by the state against the actors will continue before the Joint Commissioner, despite the ongoing litigation in the High Court. According to the state, the promotional strategies utilized for ‘Vimal Elaichi’ effectively serve to circumvent the legal ban on harmful chewable products by maintaining brand visibility through synonymous, albeit legally permissible, product lines.

Jurisdictional Shifts and Ongoing FDA Investigations

The current petition before the Bombay High Court follows a failed attempt by the product’s manufacturer to seek relief in a different jurisdiction. Earlier in August, the manufacturer, PB Agro, had approached the Delhi High Court seeking to quash the notices issued by the Maharashtra FDA. However, that court dismissed the petition on the grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The Delhi High Court observed that because the dispute originated from actions taken by the Mumbai-based regulatory authorities concerning activities occurring within Maharashtra, the courts in the state of Maharashtra serve as the appropriate and competent forum for the matter. This dismissal prompted the legal shift to the Bombay High Court, with Ajay Devgn’s legal team, led by partners from DSK Legal, filing the current challenge to obtain judicial oversight of the regulator’s actions.

The legal debate centers on the intersection of consumer protection, public health policy, and the scope of corporate liability. Surrogate advertising has long been a complex issue in Indian administrative law. Regulators often argue that when a brand uses a proxy product to build or maintain awareness for a prohibited product, it violates the spirit of public health regulations. The actors' defense, conversely, rests on the assertion that their contractual obligation to advertise a specific, non-banned product should not expose them to the liabilities of the manufacturer’s wider product portfolio.

As the matter stands, the FDA is moving forward with the adjudication process against the individuals involved. Commissioner Mundhe has confirmed that the department intends to refer the case for final adjudication in the coming week. This leaves the actors in a precarious position, awaiting the outcome of their challenge in the Bombay High Court, which could set a significant precedent for how brand ambassadors are treated in cases where a product’s marketing is accused of being a surrogate for banned items. The division bench, led by Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, will now be tasked with weighing the state’s regulatory powers to enforce public health bans against the due process rights of the individuals serving as promotional faces for corporate brands. All eyes remain on the November 4 hearing, which is expected to clarify whether the FDA’s approach of issuing direct notices to celebrities will be upheld or whether the court will demand a more focused, company-centric approach to enforcement actions.