Back
PB Agro Moves to Quash FDA Notices Over Surrogate Ad Allegations
The maker of Vimal Elaichi has taken its battle against to the , challenging show-cause notices issued by the (FDA) to three of Bollywood’s biggest stars—Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn, and Tiger Shroff. The dispute, which pivots on allegations of for a banned pan masala product, has now landed before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, who on Monday on the of whether the even has the to entertain the petition.
PB Agro, the company behind the Vimal Elaichi brand, contends that the Maharashtra FDA overstepped its authority when it directed the celebrity ambassadors to halt the promotional campaign and remove all related advertising material from digital platforms. The company argues that the notices, dated , were addressed solely to the actors and not to PB Agro itself, despite the company being the entity that would suffer from the .
The Core Allegations and Regulatory Response
The Maharashtra FDA’s notices arose from a belief that the advertisements for Vimal Elaichi are a front for the surrogate promotion of Vimal Pan Masala—a product that has been prohibited in the state. The regulator asked the three actors to furnish documents proving that Vimal Elaichi is a distinct product, and further demanded that the campaign be stopped and all related content be withdrawn from online platforms.
PB Agro, however, has forcefully disputed these claims. In its petition before the , the company pointed out that Vimal Pan Masala has not been manufactured or sold in Maharashtra since 2001. Additionally, it noted that pan masala containing tobacco has been banned nationwide since 2013, pursuant to directions from the . The company argued that in such circumstances, the allegation of is entirely baseless.
Jurisdictional Hurdles and
A key thread running through the hearing was the question of . Senior Advocates and , representing PB Agro, argued that the Maharashtra FDA lacked jurisdiction to issue directions halting the advertisements. They also stressed that the (CCPA) is already conducting a parallel investigation into the same allegations and has not issued any direction against the campaign.
This point was picked up by Advocate , appearing for the Central Government and the CCPA. She raised a regarding the of the petition before the , submitting that the appropriate for challenging a notice issued by a Maharashtra state regulator would be the . “The government of Maharashtra, which has passed the , is not here to defend its ,” Bobde told the court, underscoring the absence of the state government to argue the jurisdictional point.
She further clarified that the CCPA’s ongoing inquiry does not conflict with or preclude the notice issued by the Maharashtra FDA, effectively supporting the regulator’s right to proceed independently.
Legal Implications and Broader Impact
The case raises significant questions about the boundaries of state regulatory power in the context of national advertising campaigns. If the decides it has jurisdiction, it could set a precedent allowing companies to challenge state-level regulatory actions in a of their choosing, potentially complicating enforcement for state agencies. Conversely, a finding that only the can hear the matter would reinforce traditional principles of , requiring litigants to approach the court within the state where the impugned order was passed.
For the legal community, the outcome will also clarify the interplay between the CCPA and state food and drug authorities. The CCPA, established under the , has broad powers over misleading advertisements, while state FDAs derive their authority from the and the . A ruling that the CCPA’s inquiry does not bar parallel state action could embolden multiple regulators to pursue the same subject matter, raising the risk of for advertisers.
Celebrity endorsers, too, are watching closely. The notices to Khan, Devgn, and Shroff highlight the that brand ambassadors can face under advertising regulations. Even if the company is the ultimate target, celebrities may be required to produce documents and potentially halt campaigns, which can have immediate reputational and financial consequences.
What Lies Ahead
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma has reserved her verdict on the jurisdictional issue, leaving the substantive allegations against the Vimal Elaichi campaign yet to be adjudicated. If the court rules that it has the power to hear the petition, it will then proceed to examine the merits of PB Agro’s challenge. If not, the company will have to refile before the , likely causing delays.
The case is a vivid reminder of the regulatory risks inherent in celebrity-driven marketing, especially for products that operate in the grey zone of . As the line between permissible product promotion and prohibited brand extension continues to be litigated, companies and their legal teams will need to stay alert to the evolving stance of both central and state regulators.
For now, all eyes are on the ’s jurisdictional ruling, which will determine the next battleground for one of the most high-profile advertising disputes in recent years.
