Delhi HC reserves order on Vimal Elaichi maker's plea against FDA notices to Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn, Tiger Shroff

The Delhi High Court has reserved its verdict on whether it can hear a petition challenging show-cause notices issued by the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration to actors Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff over a chewing elaichi advertisement campaign.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma reserved orders on the preliminary question of jurisdiction after hearing the company, the Central Government and the Central Consumer Protection Authority. The court has not gone into the merits of the allegations.

Also read: Cardamom or pan masala? Why Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn, Tiger Shroff face FDA action over Vimal ads


The petition was filed by PB Agro LLP, which makes the chewing elaichi brand the three actors endorse. It has asked the Delhi High Court to quash the notices.

What the regulator alleged

The Maharashtra FDA has alleged that the advertisements amounted to surrogate promotion of a pan masala brand, a chewable product banned in the state.

According to the report, the regulator asked the actors to produce documents establishing that the chewing elaichi was distinct from banned pan masala products. It also sought a halt to the campaign and the removal of related material from digital platforms.

The company's argument

Senior advocates Dayan Krishnan and Mohit Mathur, appearing for PB Agro, said the show-cause notice dated August 11, 2026 was issued only to the brand ambassadors and not to the company, even though the company is directly affected by any action against the campaign.

PB Agro also questioned the Maharashtra FDA's jurisdiction to order the advertisements discontinued. It said the surrogate advertising allegation had no basis, arguing that the pan masala brand in question has not been manufactured or sold in Maharashtra since 2001.

The company further submitted that pan masala containing tobacco was already barred nationwide following a Supreme Court ruling in 2013. It told the court that the CCPA was separately examining similar allegations but had not issued any direction against the campaign.

Advocate Rukhmini Bobde, for the Central Government and the CCPA, opposed the maintainability of the petition in Delhi, arguing that a challenge to a Maharashtra FDA notice belongs before the Bombay High Court.

She said the Maharashtra government, which issued the notice, was not before the Delhi High Court to defend it. Bobde also said the CCPA had no objection to the Maharashtra FDA's notice, even as it ran its own proceedings on similar allegations.

Justice Sharma reserved her order after hearing both sides.

(With inputs from ANI)