The Maharashtra FDA has issued show-cause notices to superstars Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn, and Tiger Shroff regarding the Vimal Elaichi advertisement. The regulator alleges the ad is a surrogate for banned pan masala.

  • Maharashtra FDA has issued show-cause notices to Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn, and Tiger Shroff.
  • The allegation centers on 'surrogate advertising' of banned pan masala through Vimal Elaichi ads.
  • Under Section 53 of the FSS Act, penalties can reach up to ₹10 lakh for misleading advertisements.
  • Actors have 15 days to submit their written explanations.

A significant legal storm is brewing in Maharashtra as the state's Food and Drug Administration (FDA), led by Commissioner Tukaram Mundhe, has targeted Bollywood heavyweights Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn, and Tiger Shroff. The crux of the matter lies in the 'Vimal Elaichi' advertisement, which the regulator claims is a deceptive attempt at surrogate advertising for pan masala—a product prohibited in the state.

The controversy revolves around the famous catchphrase 'Bolo Zubaan Kesari.' While the advertisement promotes cardamom (elaichi), the FDA contends it is being used as a veil to market Vimal Pan Masala. This raises a fundamental question: Can a state food regulator hold celebrity endorsers accountable for the indirect promotion of banned substances?

Read Also:Box Office Report: Vijay's 'Jana Nayagan' Maintains Steady Momentum on Day 8

Why This Matters

BozokMedia analysis shows that this case is testing the jurisdictional boundaries of the Food Safety and Standards (FSS) Act. If the FDA succeeds in its legal argument, it will set a massive precedent for how brand ambassadors are held liable for the products they endorse, potentially reshaping the entire celebrity endorsement industry in India.

The FDA is essentially testing a novel legal interpretation by treating endorsers as 'parties to the publication.'

Legal experts, including Bombay High Court advocate Sankalpa Rajpurohit, point out that the FDA is invoking Sections 24 and 53 of the FSS Act, 2006. Section 53 allows for penalties of up to ₹10 lakh for anyone involved in the publication of misleading food advertisements. However, the legal landscape is nuanced; the FSS Act does not explicitly define 'endorsers' the way the Consumer Protection Act does.

Furthermore, the FDA does not have the direct power to impose these fines. The penalty must be levied by an Adjudicating Officer, typically of the rank of an Additional District Magistrate. This means the legal battle could potentially move to the Food Safety Appellate Tribunal.

Did You Know?: A recent LocalCircles survey revealed that 84% of consumers have encountered misleading or false celebrity advertisements.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What are the actors required to do?
The notice demands that the actors explain their roles, cease all endorsements of the brand, and remove promotional content from their social media handles.

2. Is this a criminal charge?
Currently, it is a 'show-cause' notice, which is a formal request to explain why legal action should not be taken, primarily focusing on financial penalties.