Delhi High Court Dismisses Vimal Elaichi Maker's Plea Against Maharashtra FDA Notices to Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn, and Tiger Shroff

The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition filed by PB Agro LLP, the manufacturer of Vimal Elaichi, challenging show-cause notices issued by the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to its brand ambassadors—actors Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn, and Tiger Shroff. Presiding over the matter, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held that the Delhi High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the challenge, invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens and ruling that the petitioner must approach the appropriate judicial forum in Maharashtra.

The controversy stems from show-cause notices issued by the Maharashtra FDA under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, alleging that promotional campaigns for Vimal Elaichi constitute surrogate advertising for Vimal Pan Masala, a banned product in Maharashtra. While PB Agro LLP contended that its head office is based in Delhi and FSSAI is headquartered in the capital, the court observed that central regulatory presence does not automatically establish jurisdiction when the cause of action and regulatory actions originated within Maharashtra.

Key legal and procedural aspects of the Delhi High Court ruling include:

• Lack of Territorial Jurisdiction: The court observed that the show-cause notices were issued by the FDA in Mumbai to actors residing in Mumbai regarding alleged statutory violations in Maharashtra.
• Doctrine of Forum Conveniens: Justice Sharma emphasized that courts in Maharashtra constitute the natural and appropriate forum to adjudicate the validity of the state FDA's regulatory notices.
• Surrogate Advertising Allegations: The Maharashtra FDA directed the celebrity endorsers to halt advertisements, remove promotional digital content, and provide documentation showing that Vimal Elaichi is distinct from banned pan masala products.
• No Ruling on Merits: The High Court dismissed the writ petition solely on jurisdictional grounds without expressing any opinion on the merits of the surrogate advertising allegations.

Key Implications

The dismissal highlights strict judicial standards regarding territorial jurisdiction in regulatory and constitutional disputes. The ruling establishes that operating a business or managing advertising strategy from Delhi does not grant Delhi courts jurisdiction over regulatory actions initiated by state authorities under local enforcement powers.

Furthermore, the case underlines the increasing regulatory oversight faced by celebrity brand ambassadors under food safety laws. As state authorities tighten rules against surrogate advertising for prohibited products like pan masala, brand endorsers and manufacturers must exercise rigorous legal and factual due diligence to ensure advertising compliance across state lines.