Ajay Devgn fights FDA over Vimal Elaichi ad

Bollywood actor Ajay Devgn has moved the Bombay High Court to challenge a show-cause notice from the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration over his appearance in Vimal Elaichi advertisements. The actor’s petition calls the regulator’s action arbitrary, and a division bench of Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna is likely to hear the matter on November 4.

The dispute is not really about a cardamom-flavoured mouth freshener. It is about who carries responsibility when a legal-looking ad keeps a banned product in the consumer’s mind.

What the FDA is claiming

According to the FDA’s notice, the Vimal Elaichi campaign amounts to surrogate promotion of Vimal Pan Masala, a chewable product banned in Maharashtra. The department has linked the brand to the sale of gutkha and pan masala, products prohibited in the state.

Similar show-cause notices were issued to actors Shah Rukh Khan and Tiger Shroff, who also appeared in the advertisements. FDA Commissioner Tukaram Mundhe said on Friday that the department had completed its investigation, found violations by the actors, and would refer the matter for adjudication next week.

The celebrity endorsement trap

Devgn’s petition argues that the notice was served on him as an actor rather than on the manufacturing company. That is the strategic heart of the case: regulators are treating the endorser as an active signal of product safety, not just a hired face.

From a marketing psychology perspective, that logic has merit. Celebrity endorsement works because audiences transfer the actor’s trust and status to the brand. A familiar face lowers the mental effort of evaluating a product. For restricted categories, that same borrowed trust becomes a regulatory liability.

Surrogate advertising is the classic workaround: use a legal line extension like elaichi to keep the forbidden master brand’s colours, typography, jingle and memory structures alive. The extension itself is legal, but the mental shortcut it triggers is the point. Regulators are now arguing that the person delivering the shortcut is part of the problem.

What brand teams should do

• Audit the full brand portfolio behind any celebrity-led line extension, not just the product being advertised.
• Check state-level bans before shooting; a product legal in one state may be prohibited in another.
• Strengthen endorsement contracts, but do not assume indemnities stop a regulator from chasing the celebrity.
• Track the November 4 hearing: it may set a template for how Maharashtra handles ambassador liability.

The case matters to every marketer who uses faces to sell. Celebrity equity is a brand asset, but it is also becoming a compliance exposure. The real question is whether courts will hold the advertiser, the actor, or both accountable for the memory that an ad plants.

Source: ETBrandEquity.com