Maharashtra FDA says the ad may indirectly promote banned Vimal pan masala.
The Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued show-cause notices to Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff over their appearance in a Vimal Elaichi advertisement, alleging that the campaign could amount to surrogate promotion of Vimal Pan Masala, which is currently prohibited in Maharashtra. The notices were issued by Maharashtra Food Safety Commissioner Tukaram Mundhe and ask the actors to explain their role in the campaign.
The Editorial Team of Behind The Headlines reports that the controversy is not simply about celebrities appearing in an elaichi advertisement. The FDA's argument is that the Vimal name itself is strongly associated with pan masala, and therefore promoting “Vimal Elaichi” could indirectly reinforce the identity of a prohibited product. The regulator has invoked provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, which restrict misleading food advertisements and provide for penalties when a person publishes or participates in the publication of such advertising.
The three actors appeared together in a Vimal Elaichi advertisement originally released in 2024.
The advertisement promoted elaichi, or cardamom, rather than directly showing pan masala. However, according to the Maharashtra FDA, the manner in which the Vimal brand is presented creates an association with Vimal Pan Masala.
The regulator has now questioned whether the advertisement is genuinely promoting only an independent elaichi product or whether it effectively keeps the Vimal Pan Masala brand visible through another product category.
This distinction is at the heart of the case.
The actors have not been accused of directly advertising a prohibited product simply because they appeared in an advertisement. Rather, the FDA is examining whether the advertisement amounts to surrogate advertising.
What is surrogate advertising?
Surrogate advertising is a strategy in which a company promotes a product that is legally or heavily restricted by advertising a different product carrying the same or closely associated brand identity.
For example, if a company cannot directly advertise a tobacco or alcohol product, it may advertise something such as elaichi, soda, water or another permissible product using the same brand name.
The advertised product may be legal.
But regulators can still examine whether the campaign's real effect is to keep the restricted brand in consumers' minds.
That is essentially the question Maharashtra FDA is asking in the Vimal case.
The regulator says the presentation of “Vimal Elaichi” appears to create an association with the Vimal Pan Masala brand and could therefore indirectly promote it.
Why is Vimal Pan Masala banned in Maharashtra?
Maharashtra has prohibited the manufacture, storage, transportation, distribution and sale of certain pan masala and tobacco-related products under food-safety regulations.
The latest prohibition order referred to by the FDA took effect in July 2026 and is valid for one year. The action was taken under Section 30(2)(a) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
This does not mean every product carrying the word “Vimal” is automatically illegal.
The controversy is specifically about whether the advertising of an otherwise permissible product such as elaichi can indirectly promote the prohibited pan masala brand.
That is why the FDA is examining the branding and advertising effect, rather than simply asking what is physically inside the product being advertised.
Why have the actors received notices?
The Food Safety and Standards Act does not only focus on the company manufacturing or selling a food product.
Section 24 prohibits food advertisements that are misleading or deceptive or that contravene provisions of the law. The law also restricts unfair or deceptive practices used to promote food products.
Section 53 provides for a penalty of up to â‚ą10 lakh for a person who publishes, or is a party to the publication of, an advertisement that falsely describes food or is likely to mislead consumers about its nature, substance or quality. FSSAI's own guidance specifically notes that celebrity endorsements can fall within these provisions.
The notices therefore seek to establish what role the three actors played in the campaign and whether their participation amounted to involvement in an advertisement that the regulator considers misleading or indirectly promotional.
Importantly, a show-cause notice is not a finding of guilt.
The actors have been given an opportunity to explain their position before any final regulatory decision is taken.
What has the FDA asked them to do?
The regulator has asked the actors to explain their participation in the campaign and has directed them to discontinue their association with the advertisement and remove related promotional material from their social-media accounts, according to reports on the notices.
The notices reportedly also seek information connected with the endorsement arrangements and the campaign.
This could help the FDA determine whether the actors knowingly participated in an advertisement that could be interpreted as promoting the restricted brand.
The next step will depend on the responses submitted by the actors and the regulator's assessment of those explanations.
Why is this becoming a bigger issue now?
The timing is important.
Maharashtra has intensified its action against prohibited tobacco and pan masala products. The state FDA has been carrying out enforcement operations and has also taken a stronger position against the promotion of such products.
That means advertisements that might previously have attracted public criticism are now receiving greater regulatory scrutiny.
The Vimal case also comes after years of debate over celebrities endorsing pan masala and related products.
The issue has repeatedly raised a simple question:
Can a celebrity legally promote an “elaichi” product when the brand is overwhelmingly associated with pan masala?
There is no automatic answer.
The regulator has to establish whether the advertisement itself violates the applicable law.
What about Shah Rukh Khan and Ajay Devgn's earlier Vimal association?
Shah Rukh Khan and Ajay Devgn have been associated with Vimal advertisements for years.
Actor Akshay Kumar was also part of a Vimal campaign alongside the two actors before stepping away following public criticism in 2022.
That earlier controversy demonstrated how celebrity endorsements can become a reputational issue even when the advertised product is presented as something other than tobacco or pan masala.
The current Maharashtra FDA action is different because it involves a formal regulatory notice rather than simply public criticism.
Does the notice mean the actors will be fined?
Not automatically.
The notices are part of the regulatory process.
The actors first have an opportunity to explain their position. The FDA will then examine the responses and decide whether further action is warranted.
If a violation under the relevant provisions is established, Section 53 allows a penalty of up to â‚ą10 lakh for misleading advertisements.
The final outcome will depend on the facts established by the regulator.
It is therefore premature to say that the three actors have been fined or found guilty.
What is the bigger advertising question?
The Vimal controversy highlights a larger problem for India's advertising industry.
A brand can have several products under the same name.
One may be perfectly legal to advertise.
Another may be prohibited or restricted.
The question then becomes whether promoting the legal product also gives the restricted product greater visibility.
This is particularly relevant when the restricted product is already the brand's most recognisable offering.
For celebrities, the issue becomes even more sensitive because their association can give a product enormous visibility.
A consumer may not remember the precise product shown in an advertisement.
They may simply remember the brand.
That is precisely the concern regulators are examining in this case.
What happens next?
The immediate next step is for Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff to respond to the Maharashtra FDA's notices.
The regulator will then decide whether the explanations are satisfactory or whether additional proceedings are required.
The case could also become an important test of how authorities interpret surrogate advertising involving brands associated with prohibited tobacco and pan masala products.
For the actors, the central question will be whether they were simply endorsing an independently marketed elaichi product or whether the campaign, knowingly or otherwise, helped reinforce the identity of a prohibited pan masala brand.
For the advertising industry, the question is even broader.
When does a legal brand extension become an indirect advertisement for a restricted product?
That is the line Maharashtra's FDA is now attempting to draw.
And the outcome could have implications not only for Vimal, but for how celebrities and companies approach similar “brand extension” advertisements in the future.