Ajay Devgn Petitions Bombay High Court Against FDA Notice Over Cardamom Commercials Challenging a show-cause notice from Maharashtra's Food and Drug Administration, actor Ajay Devgn has moved the Bombay High Court, arguing the manufacturer should be held accountable. Actor Ajay Devgn has mounted a legal challenge against a regulatory show-cause notice regarding his appearance in commercial campaigns for Vimal Elaichi. Moving the Bombay High Court, the actor contended in his plea that the Food and Drug Administration erroneously targeted him rather than issuing the summons to the firm manufacturing the product. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna is scheduled to take up the matter on November 4. Allegations of Surrogate Promotion for Banned Goods The Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration initiated action on grounds that marketing campaigns for cardamom act as indirect promotion for Vimal Pan Masala. The state enforces a complete annual ban prohibiting the manufacture, storage, distribution, and commercial sale of pan masala, operative under orders issued on July 13, 2026. Official scrutiny of the commercial indicated that prominent branding under the Vimal label leverages surrogate techniques to advance a product category that remains strictly barred by law across the state. Summons Served Across High-Profile Addresses Regulatory authorities delivered formal notices to three prominent film personalities associated with the promotional campaign. While the notice addressed to Ajay Devgn was served at his private residence in Juhu, a separate communication reached Shah Rukh Khan at his Bandra residence, Mannat. Tiger Shroff was served through his production outfit, Tiger Shroff Productions LLP. Although the enforcement move prompted extensive public debate, none of the featured performers issued formal statements in response. Enforcement Under the Food Safety Framework Authorities anchored the regulatory proceedings to Section 24 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, which strictly penalizes misleading or deceptive advertisements involving edible consumables. The action forms part of a broader inspection drive launched in recent months targeting adulteration in milk and everyday groceries, unauthorised retail counters near educational campuses, and the illicit trafficking of banned tobacco and gutkha formulations. Administrative teams have stepped up penal measures against commercial operators breaching statutory safety standards. What this means for you Regulatory scrutiny of celebrity endorsements and surrogate branding directly impacts consumer awareness and product safety enforcement. • Across India: Increased enforcement against surrogate advertising ensures greater transparency regarding the health risks of branded goods. Tighter compliance with food safety statutes discourages corporations from using benign lifestyle products to market harmful substances. • In Maharashtra: The one-year ban renewed on July 13, 2026 keeps pan masala sales illegal throughout local commercial centers. Rigorous administrative checks near educational institutes and dairy markets offer residents greater protection against adulterated staples. • For Consumers: Heightened legal scrutiny of surrogate promotions reduces misleading exposure among young audiences and families. Buyers gain clarity on whether marketing claims reflect genuine edible goods or disguised tobacco variants. • For Retailers: Merchants stocking, warehousing, or distributing banned formulations face intensified inspections from local food inspectors. Retail establishments must verify product legality to avoid confiscation and statutory penalties under safety laws. Why this happened The legal proceedings arose when regulators identified cardamom commercials as indirect promotions for state-banned pan masala. The petition followed the agency's decision to serve show-cause notices directly to celebrity endorsers rather than corporate entities. • Allegations of Surrogate Marketing: The Food and Drug Administration determined that campaigns featuring cardamom serve to maintain market recall for banned pan masala lines. Under statutory regulations, deploying alternate items under identical branding violates surrogate advertising prohibitions. • Statewide Prohibitory Orders: Maharashtra instituted a comprehensive one-year restriction on July 13, 2026, prohibiting the manufacture, storage, and commercial transit of pan masala. Active marketing under the banned brand umbrella triggered immediate administrative scrutiny. • Dispute Over Endorser Liability: The petition rests on the contention that the regulatory authority incorrectly held the individual performer liable. The legal argument asserts that statutory compliance queries must be addressed directly to the manufacturing firm. • Broader Regulatory Crackdown: Food safety authorities have spent recent months intensifying inspections against deceptive advertisements under Section 24 while clamping down on adulterated goods and tobacco sales near schools. This widespread enforcement drive led directly to the notices served to the actors. Questions & Answers 1. Why has Ajay Devgn approached the Bombay High Court? Ajay Devgn filed a petition challenging a show-cause notice from the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration, arguing that regulatory queries should be directed to the manufacturing company instead of him. 2. When will Ajay Devgn's petition be heard and by which bench? The matter is scheduled for hearing on November 4 before a bench comprising Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna. 3. What specific allegation did the FDA make against the Vimal Elaichi commercials? The FDA stated that the cardamom advertisements serve as indirect surrogate marketing for Vimal Pan Masala, a product banned across Maharashtra. 4. What is the status of the pan masala ban in Maharashtra? The manufacture, storage, distribution, and sale of pan masala is banned in Maharashtra for one year under orders issued on July 13, 2026. 5. Which other actors received notices in connection with the campaign? Notices were served to Shah Rukh Khan at his residence Mannat and to Tiger Shroff through Tiger Shroff Productions LLP. 6. Under which statutory provision did the authorities issue the notices? Action was initiated under Section 24 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, which bars misleading or deceptive advertisements regarding food items. https://trendkia.com/en/bollywood/vimala-ilayachi-vijnapana-para-fda-notisa-ke-khilapha-bombay-high-court-pahunche-ajay-devgn-54025 TrendKia — Har trend, sabse pehle.