National

Celebrity Endorsement vs Regulatory Oversight: Ajay Devgn Moves Bombay High Court Against Maharashtra FDA Notice in Vimal Elaichi Row

By The Legal Alpha Web Desk · 31 October 2026 · 5 min read
Celebrity Endorsement vs Regulatory Oversight: Ajay Devgn Moves Bombay High Court Against Maharashtra FDA Notice in Vimal Elaichi Row

Bollywood actor Ajay Devgn has approached the Bombay High Court to challenge a show-cause notice issued to him by the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The regulatory notice targets his promotional appearances in commercial advertisements for "Vimal Elaichi," which the authorities assert serves as an illicit surrogate marketing campaign for "Vimal Pan Masala"—a prohibited chewable product in the state. Devgn filed the writ petition after state authorities signalled that investigations into multiple celebrity endorsers were complete and would proceed to statutory adjudication.

Legal Topic

Area of Law: Regulatory Law / Food Safety and Consumer Protection

Sub-topic: Surrogate Advertising / Celebrity Endorser Liability

Core Legal Issue

The petition raises fundamental questions regarding the personal liability of commercial brand ambassadors under food safety regulations. Specifically, the court is called upon to examine whether a state food safety authority can proceed directly against an actor for appearing in an advertisement for a permissible commodity (cardamom seeds/elaichi), on the allegation that it constitutes surrogate promotion for a banned commodity manufactured under a shared brand identity.

Devgn also mounts a constitutional challenge against the regulatory provisions being deployed against him, questioning the arbitrary enforcement against hired performers rather than the manufacturing corporate entity.

What Did the Court / Authority Decide?

The Bombay High Court has not yet made a substantive ruling on the merits.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna is scheduled to take up the matter for preliminary hearing on November 4. Meanwhile, FDA Commissioner Tukaram Mundhe stated that administrative proceedings have been finalised on the regulator's end against several celebrity ambassadors, with the department intending to pursue adjudication before the Joint Commissioner regardless of the pending court challenge.

Key Legal Points

  • Direct Endorser Action: The case tests the statutory threshold required to fasten regulatory culpability on celebrity endorsers without proceeding exclusively against the manufacturer.

  • Surrogate Marketing Tests: The dispute requires judicial determination on whether promoting an otherwise legal brand extension (elaichi) automatically amounts to indirect marketing of prohibited pan masala under state food safety notifications.

  • Constitutional Challenges: The petitioner has challenged the validity and arbitrary execution of specific regulatory powers asserted by the state enforcement authority.

  • Forum and Jurisdiction: The challenge in Maharashtra follows earlier proceedings where the Delhi High Court dismissed a plea by the manufacturer, PB Agro, on grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction, leaving Maharashtra courts as the proper legal venue.

Relevant Law

  • Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA): Core provisions governing misleading advertisements, standard compliance, and regulatory enforcement by state authorities.

  • Food Safety and Standards (Prohibition and Restrictions on Sales) Regulations, 2011: Pertaining to state-level statutory bans on chewable tobacco, pan masala, and gutkha products.

  • Consumer Protection Act, 2019 & CCPA Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisements and Endorsements for Misleading Advertisements, 2022: Framework governing surrogate advertisements and endorser due diligence.

  • Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India: Challenging arbitrary administrative action and defending the lawful pursuit of a commercial trade or occupation.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner (Ajay Devgn):

Counsel for the actor argued that the FDA's show-cause notice was arbitrary, unreasonable, and legally misplaced. The petitioner submitted that as an actor hired to endorse a legally permitted, non-prohibited product ("Vimal Elaichi"), he cannot be penalised or singled out for alleged surrogate promotion attributable to the brand's manufacturer. The plea further questions the constitutional validity and overreach of the FDA's regulatory mechanisms applied against professional actors.

Respondent (Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration):

The regulatory authority contended that the commercial campaign is an unmistakable instance of surrogate advertising crafted to keep a banned tobacco and pan masala brand alive in public awareness. The FDA argued that the promotion circumvents state public health prohibitions and that endorsers share accountability for misleading the public when lending their likeness to prohibited product lines.

Why Does It Matter?

This litigation brings crucial scrutiny to the boundaries of celebrity endorser accountability in India. While regulators have steadily expanded enforcement against misleading and surrogate advertising, the lines separating brand-extension marketing from surrogate promotion remain fiercely contested.

A definitive ruling from the Bombay High Court could establish clear parameters regarding whether actors and public personalities can be subject to statutory penalties under food safety laws, or whether enforcement actions must remain confined strictly to product manufacturers and advertisers. The outcome will carry direct compliance consequences for talent management firms, consumer brands relying on umbrella branding, and public figures evaluating commercial endorsement contracts.

Legal Takeaway

Brand endorsers cannot assume absolute immunity from consumer protection and food safety laws simply because they are hired third parties. However, regulatory agencies must operate within strict statutory boundaries, making the judicial assessment of surrogate promotion versus legitimate brand extensions a defining test for celebrity marketing compliance.

Sources

Primary Source:

  • Ajay Devgan v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., Writ Petition before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Division Bench of Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna; hearing listed for November 4, 2026).

Additional Sources:

  • Statements and proceedings by Commissioner Tukaram Mundhe, Food and Drug Administration, Maharashtra.

  • High Court of Delhi order in manufacturer challenge (PB Agro) concerning territorial jurisdiction over Maharashtra FDA notices.

Related reporting