FDA Concludes Hearings on Vimal Ad Controversy
The Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced the completion of hearings involving Bollywood actors Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn, and Tiger Shroff. The hearings concerned show-cause notices issued to the stars over their association with advertisements for Vimal Elaichi. Maharashtra FDA Commissioner Tukaram Mundhe confirmed that responses were received from all three actors, and the hearing process has concluded, with the department now preparing to proceed further in the matter.
The notices, issued on August 11, gave the actors 15 days to respond. Mundhe stated that two of the actors had requested and completed a hearing.
The Surrogate Advertising Allegation
At the heart of the controversy is the FDA's allegation that the Vimal Elaichi campaign amounted to a surrogate promotion of Vimal Pan Masala, a product prohibited for sale in Maharashtra. The regulator questioned whether the branding and presentation of the Elaichi advertisement indirectly endorsed the pan masala.
The actors were instructed to explain why action should not be taken against them and were directed to cease participating in the advertisement, as well as remove promotional material from their official digital platforms. Commissioner Mundhe has consistently emphasized the responsibility of celebrities in endorsements, arguing that due diligence is required from those promoting products, not just manufacturers. This stance aligns with calls from figures like President Murmu, who urged celebrities to avoid endorsing potentially harmful substances.
Court Action and Next Steps
The legal dispute also saw action in the courts. On September 14, the Delhi High Court dismissed a petition filed by PB Agro LLP, the master licensee associated with Vimal Elaichi. The petition challenged the FDA notices, but the court ruled that Maharashtra was the appropriate jurisdiction for such a challenge.
With the hearings now finished, the Maharashtra FDA will decide its next course of action. Mundhe had previously indicated that proceedings had been initiated against any actor who did not respond within the stipulated period, though he did not publicly identify specific individuals at that time.