FDA Notices Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff Over Vimal Elaichi Advertisement

FDA Notices Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff Over Vimal Elaichi Advertisement

The Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued show-cause notices to Bollywood actors Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff over their appearance in an advertisement for Vimal Elaichi. The regulator has raised concerns that the campaign could amount to surrogate or indirect promotion of Vimal Pan Masala, a product prohibited in Maharashtra.

The notices, issued by the FDA's Greater Mumbai division and dated August 11, 2026, question the way the Vimal brand is presented in the advertisement. According to the regulator, the use of the name "Vimal Elaichi" may create an association with the broader Vimal Pan Masala brand, potentially allowing a prohibited product to gain visibility through the promotion of a legally marketed cardamom product.

The controversy centres on the concept of surrogate advertising. Under this practice, a brand associated with a restricted or prohibited product promotes another product carrying the same or a closely related brand identity. Although the advertised product may itself be legal, regulators can examine whether the overall presentation effectively promotes the restricted product.

The Maharashtra FDA has asked the three actors to explain their involvement in the campaign and provide supporting documents. The notices reportedly seek information about their endorsement agreements, campaign briefs, product details, advertising agencies and the due diligence undertaken before they agreed to participate. The actors have also been directed to discontinue their participation in the advertisement and remove promotional material from official social-media accounts, websites and other digital platforms under their control.

The actors have 15 days from receiving the notices to submit written explanations. The FDA has also asked for documentary evidence establishing whether Vimal Elaichi is an independently marketed product or whether the campaign constitutes a brand-extension exercise intended to promote Vimal Pan Masala or tobacco-related products.

Maharashtra has prohibited the manufacture, sale and distribution of gutka and pan masala containing tobacco or nicotine since 2012, with the prohibition renewed through subsequent orders. The FDA's latest action forms part of a wider enforcement campaign against prohibited food products and their promotion.

FDA Commissioner Tukaram Mundhe has subsequently warned that the matter could lead to financial penalties if the actors' responses are found unsatisfactory. Reports citing Mundhe say that each actor could face a fine of up to ₹10 lakh, along with further legal action. Importantly, this is a potential consequence of the proceedings and not a fine that has already been imposed on the three actors.

The regulator's intervention also raises a broader question about the responsibility of celebrities who endorse products whose branding is closely associated with restricted or harmful substances. The Vimal Elaichi campaign had featured the three actors, while the Vimal name is widely associated with pan masala in the Indian market. The FDA's position is that such branding cannot necessarily be considered in isolation simply because the specific product named in an advertisement is different.

The notices do not, by themselves, establish that Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn or Tiger Shroff have committed an offence. They are an opportunity for the actors to respond to the regulator's allegations and provide evidence regarding the nature of the product and their endorsement arrangements. The next stage will depend on the explanations and documents submitted to the FDA.

The case is therefore significant beyond the three celebrities involved. It could test how Indian regulators approach celebrity endorsements where a legal product shares branding with a prohibited product, and whether advertisers and public figures can rely solely on the formal identity of the advertised product when the wider branding creates a different commercial message. Maharashtra's latest action suggests that regulators intend to examine such campaigns more closely.