The Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed a plea by PB Agro LLP, the maker of Vimal Elaichi, that had sought to quash show-cause notices issued to Bollywood actors Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff by the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration. Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma held that Maharashtra courts, not those in Delhi, are the appropriate forum because the alleged advertising violations occurred in that state, PTI reported. The court dismissed the petition on the ground of territorial jurisdiction without expressing any opinion on the merits.
The dismissal was also covered by India Today, which noted that the court refused to entertain PB Agro's plea on jurisdictional grounds. The show-cause notices, sent on 11 August, targeted the three actors and not the company, according to the petition. The Maharashtra FDA alleged that Vimal Elaichi advertisements were surrogate advertisements for Vimal Pan Masala, a chewable product banned in Maharashtra.
PB Agro's counsel argued that because the notices went only to the actors, the company alone would suffer if the food regulator acted. Justice Sharma rejected that argument, citing the doctrine of forum conveniens. The petitioner failed to establish that any substantial or material part of the action arose within the Delhi High Court's territorial jurisdiction. "The petition is therefore dismissed on this ground, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's challenge. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of," the court said in its order, according to PTI.
Surrogate Ads and Celebrity Due Diligence
Vimal Elaichi was not summoned for selling cardamom. The Maharashtra FDA's complaint is that the elaichi packets function as a disguise for Vimal Pan Masala, a product the state has banned. Surrogate advertising survives on this ambiguity: you cannot advertise the banned item, so you advertise an item with the same name, same logo, same jingle. The actor may believe he is selling breath freshener; the consumer sees the face of a superstar and remembers the brand. Indian consumer-protection regulators have been closing this gap. They now require endorsers to exercise due diligence before attaching their name to a product, and they have moved beyond warning letters to show-cause notices that demand documentation.
The Delhi High Court's ruling does not decide whether SRK, Ajay Devgn or Tiger Shroff actually misled anyone. It decides only where that question will be answered. But that procedural point carries weight. A company registered in Delhi cannot use its headquarters as a shield against a state regulator that has evidence of a violation within that state. The doctrine of forum conveniens is a common-law tool, and its application here reflects an Indian regulatory reality: state food and drug administrations are the first line of enforcement, and courts will not let national celebrity campaigns dilute that authority.
What the Order Changes for Brand Ambassadors
The three actors were not parties to the Delhi petition, and the cited reporting does not record any public statement from them on the notices. Their legal exposure, if any, will now be tested in Maharashtra. The order means they cannot rely on PB Agro's Delhi plea to shield them from answering the regulator's questions. If Maharashtra authorities proceed, the actors will need to show what due diligence they performed before signing the Vimal Elaichi contracts. The same expectation extends to every celebrity who promotes a product that shares branding with something prohibited in a state.
India's consumer-protection framework treats celebrities differently than before. The old model treated them as hired faces, insulated from the product's legal status. The emerging model treats them as participants in the communication, answerable for what they help sell. The court did not invent this principle; India's consumer protection framework has been moving in this direction for several years. But a high court order that sends a celebrity brand dispute back to the state regulator gives the principle a practical consequence. It says territorial jurisdiction will not be used as a delay tactic when a state flags misleading advertising.
For advertising agencies and media planners, the order offers a compliance checkpoint. A campaign built around a celebrity often involves contracts that promise compliance with applicable laws, as PB Agro argued in its petition. Courts are now saying that such a promise does not preclude regulatory scrutiny; it merely defines the question. If the advertisement turns out to be a surrogate for a banned product, the contractual assurance will not protect either the company or the endorser from answering the Maharashtra FDA.
State Jurisdiction and Consumer Protection
India's federal structure gives states the power to ban products that the centre permits. Maharashtra's ban on pan masala is stricter than the national position on tobacco and nicotine substitutes. That creates a patchwork that national brands sometimes exploit by running a single master advertisement across states with different restrictions. Monday's ruling gives state regulators confidence that their bans cannot be undermined by a forum challenge in a distant high court. The result is a regulatory environment where a brand must tailor its campaigns to the strictest state, not the most permissive one.
The Vimal Elaichi case is not an outlier. Maharashtra has long been a centre for enforcement against tobacco and pan masala advertising, and its food and drug administration has issued notices to companies and endorsers before. What makes Monday's order notable is the court's refusal to allow a corporate petitioner to shift the forum. The same principle will apply to other national advertising disputes: the state where the advertisement harms consumers is the state whose courts will examine it.
The practical consequence of the Delhi High Court's order is that PB Agro must now contest the Maharashtra FDA's allegations in a Maharashtra forum, where the regulator's evidentiary record and state-specific ban on pan masala will frame the arguments. The ruling also signals to brand ambassadors that forum shopping is not a credible defence strategy. A celebrity who appears in an advertisement cannot avoid answering questions about that advertisement merely because the company or the notice's recipient prefers a different court.
For Indian consumers, the takeaway is straightforward. The world's largest film industry is no longer a shield for products that regulators believe violate public-health rules. A show-cause notice to a star is not a headline anymore; it is the beginning of a process that courts are willing to guide to the state where the harm is alleged. For brands, the lesson is clear: a registered office in Delhi does not secure a Delhi courtroom when Maharashtra says you sold something prohibited. The forum is where the violation lives, and India's consumer-protection system is learning to follow that rule.
