Not one, not two, but three of Bollywood’s biggest names are now being asked to explain an old advertisement. Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff have received show-cause notices from the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration over an advertisement for Vimal Elaichi, and the question at the centre of the action is not simply about the mouth freshener itself, but whether the campaign indirectly promotes another product carrying the same brand identity.
What the FDA Notice Says
The notice, issued under Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Tukaram Mundhe, raises concerns that the Vimal Elaichi advertisement may amount to surrogate advertising for Vimal Pan Masala, a product prohibited in Maharashtra. The FDA’s concern is fairly specific: the shared “Vimal” name, branding and presentation may help sustain consumer recall for the prohibited product even though the advertisement itself promotes elaichi.
Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff have been asked to respond within 15 days. The FDA has also sought details relating to their endorsements and asked that promotional material connected to the campaign be removed from their social-media accounts. If the authority concludes that provisions relating to misleading food advertising have been violated, further proceedings could follow under the Food Safety and Standards Act. The law provides for penalties of up to ₹10 lakh in cases involving misleading advertisements.
Vimal Elaichi vs Vimal Pan Masala: What’s the Difference?
On paper, the two are marketed as different products. Vimal Elaichi is promoted as a cardamom-based mouth freshener, while Vimal Pan Masala belongs to a different product category associated with pan masala. The FDA’s question is therefore less about whether the two products are technically identical and more about the branding surrounding them. Can a permitted product carrying the same name, visual identity and celebrity-led advertising indirectly reinforce consumer recognition of a prohibited product? That is essentially the surrogate-advertising question now being examined.
The Maharashtra action is significant because officials have described it as an attempt to scrutinise this form of indirect promotion more closely.
Sunny Deol: “I Don’t Do Pan Masala Ads”
The controversy has also put renewed attention on actors who say they have deliberately stayed away from the category. Sunny Deol recently addressed the subject during a podcast with Shubhankar Mishra, when asked why he is not seen endorsing pan masala products. “I don’t do pan masala ads and kabhi karunga bhi nahi,” Deol said.
He added that such offers do come his way, but he turns them down when they conflict with what he personally believes in. “Kitni cheezein nahi karta because mera zameer nahi manta isliye aur jo karni hoti hai voh kar leta hoon,” he said.
Podcast:
Why Surrogate Advertising Keeps Coming Up
The Vimal Elaichi case sits within a much larger debate over surrogate advertising in India. When direct advertising of a restricted or prohibited product is not permitted, companies have sometimes marketed another product carrying the same or similar brand name, packaging or visual identity. The practice has long attracted scrutiny in categories such as alcohol, where brands have advertised products including soda, water or music-related properties under names closely associated with liquor brands.
India’s consumer-protection framework prohibits misleading advertisements and also places responsibility on endorsers to exercise due diligence before appearing in campaigns. In the Vimal Elaichi case, the Maharashtra FDA is effectively asking a similar question from the food-safety perspective: when the permitted product and the prohibited product share a powerful brand identity, where does ordinary brand extension end and indirect promotion begin?
For Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff, that question is now no longer merely part of an online debate. It is one they have formally been asked to answer.
