Bollywood actor Ajay Devgn has moved the Bombay High Court against a Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration (FDA) notice linked to his appearance in advertisements for Vimal Elaichi, with a hearing likely on November 4. The case raises a question: when an advertisement is accused of indirectly promoting a banned product, should action fall on the actor, or on the company behind the brand?
Devgn’s petition challenges the show-cause notice issued by the Maharashtra FDA. His core argument, as reported by several outlets, is that the notice was issued to him directly as an actor, instead of being directed at the manufacturing company. The petition also questions the constitutional validity of the provisions behind the notice.
The matter is expected to come up before a division bench comprising Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna. No final order has been reported, and November 4 is the likely hearing date, not a decided outcome.
What Devgn is asking the court to decide
At its heart, the case is about responsibility. Devgn’s position is that an actor who appears in an advertisement is not the manufacturer, and should not be treated as the first target of regulatory action when the dispute is really about the product and the company selling it.
That argument matters because celebrity endorsements often sit in a grey area. An actor lends face and familiarity to a brand, but does not usually control how the product is made or sold. Devgn’s petition asks the court to examine whether the regulator jumped a step by moving against the performer rather than the producer.
Why the FDA issued the notice
The Maharashtra FDA alleges that advertisements for Vimal Elaichi amounted to surrogate promotion of Vimal Pan Masala, a chewable product banned in Maharashtra. Surrogate advertising is when an advertisement for a permitted product is accused of indirectly promoting a restricted or banned product that shares a similar brand name, look or identity.
Regulators have used this argument in several pan masala related cases. Their concern is that a viewer may associate the advertised product with the banned product, even if the advertisement itself does not name it.
That disagreement is now at the centre of the case. The court will have to weigh the regulator’s concern about indirect promotion against the argument that an actor should not be penalised on association alone.
The other actors, and what the FDA said on October 30
Devgn is not the only actor named in this dispute. Similar notices were also issued to Shah Rukh Khan and Tiger Shroff, who appeared in the same campaign. So far, Devgn is the one who has approached the Bombay High Court in this round.
On October 30, Maharashtra FDA Commissioner Tukaram Mundhe said proceedings against the three actors over the alleged violations had been completed. According to reports, the department had found violations, and the matter would be referred for adjudication before the joint commissioner.
Mundhe also made clear that Devgn’s High Court petition would not stop the department’s proceedings. The regulatory track and the court track are running in parallel, and no stay has been reported.
How the case reached Bombay after Delhi
The dispute has already travelled through another court. The manufacturer, PB Agro, had approached the Delhi High Court in August seeking to have the notices set aside. That plea did not succeed there, with reports noting that Maharashtra’s courts were the appropriate forum for action by the Mumbai FDA.
Following that development, Devgn approached the Bombay High Court. Reports also note that the FDA notices were issued on August 14, asking the actors to explain their roles in the advertisement and their association with the brand.
Why this case matters beyond one advertisement
For the film industry, the case touches a practical question for endorsement deals. If actors can face direct regulatory notices, they may demand stronger checks and clearer contracts. For regulators, it tests the limits of surrogate advertising action.
What happens next
- November 4: Devgn’s petition is likely to be heard by the Bombay High Court bench.
- FDA adjudication: Proceedings before the joint commissioner are expected to continue, with no stay reported so far.
- Other actors: Attention will remain on whether Shah Rukh Khan and Tiger Shroff take a similar legal route.
Until the court hears the matter, the key facts remain as reported: a notice was issued, an investigation was completed, a petition has been filed, and a hearing is likely on November 4.
FAQs
Why has Ajay Devgn approached the Bombay High Court?
He has challenged a Maharashtra FDA show-cause notice over his appearance in Vimal Elaichi advertisements, arguing that the notice was issued to him as an actor instead of the manufacturing company.
When is the case likely to be heard?
Reports say the petition is likely to be heard on November 4 by a bench comprising Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna.
What does the FDA allege?
The FDA alleges that the Vimal Elaichi advertisements amounted to surrogate promotion of Vimal Pan Masala, a chewable product banned in Maharashtra.
Are other actors involved?
Yes. Similar notices were issued to Shah Rukh Khan and Tiger Shroff, who also appeared in the campaign.
Has the FDA stopped its proceedings?
No. Commissioner Tukaram Mundhe has said the proceedings will continue, and no stay has been reported.
All eyes are now on November 4.
