Maharashtra FDA Moves Against Bollywood Actors Over Vimal Elaichi Surrogate Advertising

The Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued show-cause notices on August 11, 2026 to film stars Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff. The notices allege that their endorsement of a Vimal Elaichi advertisement amounts to *surrogate advertising* for Vimal Pan Masala, a tobacco-related product prohibited in Maharashtra under the Prohibition Order dated 13 July 2026. The FDA demanded that the actors cease involvement, remove promotional material, and provide documentation of due-diligence, endorsement contracts and campaign briefs.

Hindustan Times

One actor has not replied; the regulator has therefore begun adjudication and prosecution proceedings against that individual. An assistant commissioner will conduct the hearing.

'May Be Stars. To Me, They're Violators Of Law': Tukaram Mundhe On Actors In Surrogate Ads

Surrogate advertising promotes a legally permissible product while using the brand name or imagery of a banned product. In India, the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 (COTPA) prohibits “directly or indirectly” promoting tobacco products. The Maharashtra FDA invoked the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006 and the Food Safety and Standards (Advertising and Claims) Regulations 2018 to justify the notices.

ThePrint

The Vimal brand is widely associated with pan masala, a chewable tobacco product barred in Maharashtra for a year and nationwide since the Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling. The FDA framed the Vimal Elaichi campaign as a possible indirect promotion of the banned pan masala.

Hindustan Times

• Notice date: August 11, 2026 (15 days to respond).

CNN-News18

• Response status: Two actors submitted replies; one actor (most likely Shah Rukh Khan) has not responded.

CNN-News18

• Legal outcome: On September 14, the Delhi High Court dismissed a petition by PB Agro LLP (master licensee for Vimal Elaichi) seeking to quash the notices, citing lack of territorial jurisdiction and directing the matter to Maharashtra courts.

Bar & Bench

Commissioner Tukaram Mundhe emphasized that celebrity status does not exempt endorsers from legal responsibility and that liability under the Food Safety Act rests with the advertiser. The FDA also referred the matter of excessive mark-ups on hospital consumables to the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority.

The Indian Express

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma clarified that the Delhi High Court could not entertain the challenge because the FDA’s action originated in Maharashtra, making the state’s courts the appropriate forum. The judgment did not address the merits of the surrogate-advertising allegation.

Bar & Bench

• “According to you they may be stars, but according to me they are only advertisers in this case.” — Tukaram Mundhe, commissioner

'May Be Stars. To Me, They're Violators Of Law': Tukaram Mundhe On Actors In Surrogate Ads

• “We have taken this action as per the law,” — Tukaram Mundhe, commissioner

'May Be Stars. To Me, They're Violators Of Law': Tukaram Mundhe On Actors In Surrogate Ads

• “Sponsoring of activities like cultural, sports, music, etc. by itself cannot be said to be illegal, unlawful or otherwise prohibited but sponsoring of such events with an objective to use a well-known liquor brand, in our view, would fall within the category of ‘Surrogate Advertisements’ ,” — the court

ThePrint

The FDA disclosed that two actors responded while one did not, but it did not identify the individuals. Commissioner Mundhe later suggested that Shah Rukh Khan “most likely” failed to reply, yet admitted uncertainty. No public record confirms which two actors submitted responses.

The Indian Express

The case highlights expanding regulatory scrutiny over celebrity endorsements in India where products intersect with public-health restrictions. Holding endorsers accountable could set a precedent for future enforcement of surrogate-advertising prohibitions across tobacco, alcohol and other regulated sectors.

ThePrint