The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea challenging the show-cause notice issued to brand ambassadors Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn, and Tiger Shroff by the Maharashtra FDA regarding surrogate advertising. The court ruled that Maharashtra courts are the appropriate forum for the dispute.

  • Delhi High Court refused to entertain the plea against Maharashtra FDA notices.
  • Celebrities Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn, and Tiger Shroff are involved in the surrogate advertising row.
  • The plea was dismissed on grounds of territorial jurisdiction.
  • Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma ruled Maharashtra courts are the appropriate forum.

The Delhi High Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea challenging the show-cause notice issued to Vimal Elaichi’s brand ambassadors—renowned actors Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn, and Tiger Shroff. The actors have been accused of engaging in 'surrogate advertising' for pan masala by the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The Jurisdictional Dispute

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma dismissed the plea primarily on the grounds of territorial jurisdiction. In her observations, she noted that "courts in Maharashtra are the more appropriate and convenient forum" for such a legal challenge. The petitioner, PB Agro LLP—the master licensee for the manufacture and sale of non-tobacco flavored products under the Vimal brand—had argued that because the FDA operates under the Union Health Ministry based in New Delhi, the Delhi HC should have jurisdiction.

Read Also:Police Arrest 15-Year-Old After Festival Shooting Near Space Needle

Why This Matters

BozokMedia analysis shows that this ruling sets a significant precedent regarding the territorial limits of legal challenges against regulatory bodies. It clarifies that the location of a company's headquarters or the residence of its brand ambassadors does not automatically grant a specific court jurisdiction if the alleged regulatory violation occurs in another state. This move strengthens the hand of state-level regulators like the Maharashtra FDA in enforcing anti-surrogate advertising laws.

The legal scrutiny on celebrity endorsements is intensifying, making brand ambassadors directly liable for the nature of the products they promote.

PB Agro LLP contended that their business operations and engagement with brand ambassadors are centered in Delhi, which they believed should suffice for the Delhi High Court to adjudicate the matter. However, the court held that these factors alone cannot confer territorial jurisdiction for the adjudication of the notice issued by a state-level authority.

Historical Background: The Surge of Surrogate Advertising

Surrogate advertising has long been a contentious issue in India. Due to strict bans on direct tobacco and pan masala advertisements, companies often use 'surrogate' products—such as mouth fresheners, cardamom (elaichi), or soda—to maintain brand visibility. This practice has led to a cat-and-mouse game between advertisers and regulators like the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) and state FDA bodies.

Did You Know?: Surrogate advertising is a marketing technique where a company promotes a restricted product by using a similar name or brand identity for an unrestricted product.

Frequently Asked Questions

Question 1: Why were the actors served a show-cause notice?
Answer: They were accused by the Maharashtra FDA of promoting pan masala through surrogate advertising of 'elaichi'.

Question 2: Why did the Delhi High Court refuse the case?
Answer: The court ruled that the case falls under the territorial jurisdiction of Maharashtra courts.