by The controversy surrounding celebrity endorsements of pan masala-linked brands has entered a new phase, with actors Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff reportedly submitting their responses to the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over a Vimal Elaichi advertisement, while Shah Rukh Khan’s response is still awaited.
The development comes weeks after the Maharashtra FDA issued show-cause notices to Devgn, Shroff and Khan over their participation in an advertisement for Vimal Elaichi. The regulator has raised concerns that the campaign could amount to surrogate or indirect advertising for Vimal Pan Masala, a product whose manufacture, storage, transportation, distribution and sale are currently prohibited in Maharashtra.
According to reports published on September 4, 2026, Devgn and Shroff have now responded to the regulator, while Khan has reportedly not yet submitted his explanation. The responses are part of a wider regulatory examination of the advertisement and do not, by themselves, establish that any actor has been found guilty of violating the law. (The Times of India)
The case has attracted considerable attention because it sits at the intersection of celebrity culture, advertising, consumer protection and public-health regulation. It also raises an increasingly relevant question in India’s entertainment industry: how much responsibility should celebrities bear when they endorse products that regulators believe may be connected to prohibited or harmful categories?
Why the Vimal Elaichi Advertisement Is Under Scrutiny
At the centre of the controversy is a Vimal Elaichi campaign featuring Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff.
On the surface, the product promoted in the advertisement is elaichi, or cardamom. However, the Maharashtra FDA has questioned whether the advertisement should be understood independently from the wider Vimal brand, which is prominently associated in the market with pan masala.
This distinction is important.
Surrogate advertising refers broadly to marketing that promotes a brand or brand identity associated with a restricted product through another product or service. Rather than directly advertising a prohibited item, a campaign may feature an apparently permissible product carrying the same or closely associated branding.
The Maharashtra FDA’s concern is that consumers may not necessarily separate Vimal Elaichi from the broader Vimal Pan Masala identity. The regulator therefore wants to determine whether the advertisement is genuinely promoting an independent elaichi product or whether it indirectly reinforces the visibility and recognition of a prohibited pan masala brand.
The show-cause notices reportedly asked the three actors to explain their involvement and provide supporting documentation. The FDA specifically sought information relating to endorsement agreements, campaign briefs, product details, payments, advertising agencies and the due diligence undertaken before the actors participated in the campaign. (The Indian Express)
The regulator also asked for information about where and when the advertisement was broadcast or published, including television, digital and social-media platforms.
That makes the matter more significant than a simple question of whether an actor appeared in a commercial.
The FDA is effectively examining the entire advertising chain and the circumstances surrounding the endorsement.
What the Maharashtra FDA Asked the Actors to Explain
The notices reportedly gave the actors 15 days from receipt to provide written explanations and supporting documents.
Among the instructions was a request that they immediately discontinue participation in and endorsement of the Vimal Pan Masala/Elaichi advertisement. They were also directed to remove related promotional content from their official social-media accounts and refrain from further assistance in broadcasting, publishing or promoting the campaign. (The Indian Express)
The regulator also wanted documentary evidence addressing a central question: whether Vimal Elaichi exists as an independently marketed product or whether the campaign could function as a surrogate communication for Vimal Pan Masala or tobacco-related products.
This requirement places the emphasis not simply on the actors’ personal understanding of the product, but on the broader commercial context.
For celebrity advertising, that distinction can be consequential. A famous actor may believe they are endorsing one particular product, while regulators may examine whether the advertisement’s branding, presentation and market associations produce a different effect.
The FDA has reportedly invoked provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, including Section 24 concerning misleading advertisements and Section 53, which provides for penalties in cases involving misleading food advertisements. The notices also referred to the Food Safety and Standards (Advertising and Claims) Regulations, 2018. (The Indian Express)
The notices further referred to Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which gives the Central Consumer Protection Authority powers concerning false or misleading advertisements and provides for penalties and restrictions involving endorsers in applicable cases. (The Indian Express)
Importantly, however, a show-cause notice is not the same as a final finding of liability. It is an opportunity for the recipients to explain their position before the regulator determines what, if any, further action is appropriate.
Ajay Devgn’s Response Brings Another Chapter to His Vimal Association
Ajay Devgn’s involvement in the controversy has particular resonance because he has been associated with Vimal advertising for years.
His image has become closely connected with the brand’s advertising campaigns, making his participation a familiar part of the company’s celebrity marketing strategy.
That history is relevant to the current controversy because the FDA is not examining an isolated image or casual appearance. It is looking at a campaign and the relationship between a highly recognisable celebrity and a brand that regulators say is strongly associated with pan masala.
Reports now indicate that Devgn has submitted his response to the Maharashtra FDA. However, the precise contents of his explanation have not been publicly established in the reporting currently available.
That distinction matters.
A response to a show-cause notice can contain legal arguments, contractual information, factual explanations, documentary evidence or other material that may not immediately become public. Until the contents are officially disclosed, it would be inappropriate to assume what position Devgn has taken or what conclusions the regulator will eventually reach.
For now, the significant development is that he has reportedly responded rather than allowing the matter to proceed without an explanation.
Tiger Shroff Also Submits His Explanation
Tiger Shroff, who appeared alongside Devgn and Khan in the Vimal campaign, has also reportedly submitted his response to the FDA.
Shroff’s participation made the advertisement particularly notable because the campaign brought together three generations and styles of Bollywood stardom.
Devgn represents an established era of Hindi cinema, Khan remains one of the industry’s most globally recognised stars, and Shroff has developed a strong identity among younger audiences.
That combination gives the advertisement considerable reach.
It also helps explain why regulators may pay attention to celebrity endorsements beyond the immediate commercial transaction. Advertising is not simply about what a product is; it is also about how the product is positioned, who communicates the message and which audiences are likely to encounter it.
The FDA’s concerns therefore extend into the broader question of the impact of celebrity branding.
Again, however, Shroff’s submission of a response should not be interpreted as an admission of wrongdoing. A show-cause process exists precisely to allow the recipient to contest, clarify or explain allegations before any conclusion is reached.
Shah Rukh Khan’s Response Is Still Awaited
While Devgn and Shroff have reportedly responded, Shah Rukh Khan’s reply remains awaited.
Khan’s absence from the list of reported responses has become one of the most closely watched aspects of the latest development.
The original notice was issued to all three actors, meaning Khan is subject to the same broad regulatory questions regarding the Vimal campaign.
The FDA’s notice reportedly required all three celebrities to provide explanations within the specified period and warned that further action could follow if no explanation was received or if the explanation was considered unsatisfactory. (Hindustan Times)
That does not automatically mean Khan faces a predetermined penalty simply because his response has not yet been publicly reported.
Regulatory proceedings generally depend on the circumstances of the individual case, the evidence provided and the authority’s assessment of the applicable law.
It is therefore too early to predict what will happen next.
The most immediate question is whether Khan submits his explanation and, if so, what information it contains.
Maharashtra’s Wider Crackdown on Pan Masala and Gutkha
The celebrity notices are part of a broader enforcement drive by the Maharashtra FDA.
The regulator has been intensifying action against banned gutkha and tobacco- or nicotine-containing pan masala products, including raids, seizures and coordination with police authorities.
According to The Indian Express, between May 25 and July 31, Maharashtra FDA operations resulted in raids at 658 establishments where banned products were found. Authorities reportedly seized stock worth Rs 15.11 crore, registered 519 FIRs and made 701 arrests during that period. The FDA also seized vehicles allegedly involved in transporting banned products. (The Indian Express)
The current prohibition on gutkha and pan masala containing tobacco or nicotine in Maharashtra was renewed with effect from July 13, 2026.
The regulator has also indicated that enforcement is not limited to manufacturers or retailers. Officials have been examining the wider ecosystem surrounding prohibited products, including advertising and promotional activity.
That broader approach provides important context for the notices issued to Devgn, Khan and Shroff.
The actors are not being investigated because they are manufacturers or sellers of pan masala. Rather, the regulatory question centres on whether their participation in the Vimal Elaichi campaign contributed to indirect promotion of a prohibited product or brand.
Why Celebrity Endorsements Matter So Much
The controversy also highlights why celebrities have become such an important part of India’s advertising economy.
Bollywood stars can transform the visibility of a brand almost overnight. Their faces, voices and personalities carry cultural associations that ordinary advertising cannot easily replicate.
When a major star appears in an advertisement, consumers may remember the celebrity even more strongly than the product itself.
This is particularly significant for products that are consumed or marketed across large demographic groups.
A celebrity endorsement can make a brand feel familiar, fashionable or socially acceptable. For younger audiences, the association may be especially powerful because actors are not merely advertisers; they are often perceived as aspirational figures.
This is one reason regulators and consumer advocates have increasingly focused on the responsibilities of endorsers.
The debate is not necessarily about whether celebrities should advertise products at all. Instead, it is about whether they should conduct meaningful due diligence before lending their public image to a campaign.
The Maharashtra FDA’s request for information about due diligence is therefore one of the most interesting aspects of the case.
It raises a broader industry question: How thoroughly should celebrities investigate the products and brands they endorse?
The Complicated World of Brand Extensions
The Vimal controversy also illustrates why brand extensions can create complicated regulatory questions.
Companies frequently expand established brands into different categories. From a purely commercial perspective, this can be effective because consumers already recognise the brand name.
But when one product category is heavily regulated or prohibited, a closely associated extension can attract additional scrutiny.
The issue becomes particularly complicated when the visual identity, name, celebrity ambassadors and advertising style remain strongly connected across different products.
Regulators may then ask whether consumers actually perceive the products as separate.
The Maharashtra FDA has specifically sought evidence regarding whether Vimal Elaichi is an independent product or whether its advertising functions as surrogate communication for Vimal Pan Masala. (The Indian Express)
That question could potentially influence how similar campaigns are evaluated in the future.
Vimal Advertising Has Faced Scrutiny Before
The present controversy is not the first time Vimal-related advertising has attracted regulatory attention.
The Indian Express reported that in 2018, the Directorate General of Health Services issued show-cause notices to Vishnu Pouch Packaging Pvt Ltd over allegations concerning indirect advertising of tobacco products through Vimal Elaichi.
The company challenged the notices, maintaining that it was not manufacturing a tobacco product under the Vimal brand for the domestic market.
In January 2024, the Delhi High Court dismissed DGHS appeals against trial-court orders that had allowed the company to continue advertising products without tobacco, while the broader question concerning surrogate advertising remained contested. (The Indian Express)
That history adds another layer to the current debate.
It demonstrates that questions surrounding the relationship between apparently permissible Vimal products and prohibited tobacco-related products have existed for years.
The latest Maharashtra FDA action therefore represents a renewed regulatory examination rather than an entirely new issue.
What Could Happen Next?
The next stage will likely depend on the responses submitted by the actors and the documents accompanying them.
For Devgn and Shroff, the regulator will have to examine their explanations and determine whether the material adequately addresses the concerns raised in the notices.
For Khan, the immediate issue is whether his response is submitted and when.
After considering the explanations and evidence, the regulator could decide that no further action is warranted, request additional information, or proceed with further regulatory or legal measures if it believes violations have been established.
The possibility of penalties has received significant attention because Section 53 of the FSS Act can provide for a penalty of up to Rs 10 lakh in relevant misleading-advertising cases. The notices also referred to provisions of the Consumer Protection Act concerning penalties and restrictions on endorsers. (The Indian Express)
But it is important not to confuse the maximum statutory consequences cited in a notice with a punishment that has actually been imposed.
At this stage, the actors have received show-cause notices and, according to current reports, two have submitted responses. The regulatory process is still ongoing.
The Bigger Debate: Should Celebrities Be More Careful?
Beyond the three actors, the controversy raises a question that affects the entire Indian entertainment and advertising industry.
Celebrity endorsements operate on trust.
Audiences may not know the technical details of a product, but they recognise the person presenting it. The celebrity’s reputation becomes part of the marketing proposition.
That creates a form of responsibility.
At the same time, celebrities are generally not manufacturers, scientists or regulatory authorities. They may rely on brands, advertising agencies, legal teams and contracts when determining whether an endorsement is appropriate.
This creates a difficult balance.
How much responsibility should reasonably fall on an actor? Should celebrities be expected to independently investigate a company’s entire business portfolio? Or should their responsibility primarily relate to the specific product they are contractually engaged to promote?
The current Vimal case touches precisely on that tension.
The FDA’s request for information about due diligence suggests that the regulator is interested in understanding what the endorsers knew, what they were told and what checks were performed before they participated in the campaign.
That could make the eventual outcome important not only for Devgn, Shroff and Khan but also for future celebrity advertising agreements.
Why the Case Has Become a Cultural Conversation
The story has resonated beyond legal and regulatory circles because Bollywood celebrity culture is deeply intertwined with advertising.
Major stars frequently appear in campaigns for everything from automobiles and technology to food, fashion and financial services. Their endorsements help brands become part of everyday popular culture.
Pan masala advertising occupies a particularly controversial position within that ecosystem because of the health concerns associated with tobacco and nicotine-containing products.
When a celebrity associated with glamour, success and aspirational lifestyles appears in a campaign connected in the public imagination with pan masala, questions about influence naturally follow.
The Vimal campaign is therefore not merely another advertising dispute.
It is part of a much larger conversation about how brands communicate in highly regulated categories and how celebrity power can shape consumer perception.
A Moment of Accountability for the Advertising Industry
The current developments may ultimately have consequences beyond the individuals named in the notices.
If regulators take a stricter position on brand extensions and surrogate advertising, advertising agencies may become more cautious about campaigns involving brands associated with prohibited products.
Brands could face greater pressure to demonstrate that their supposedly independent product categories have a legitimate commercial identity separate from restricted products.
Celebrities may also demand more extensive contractual assurances and documentation before agreeing to campaigns.
In that sense, the controversy could encourage greater transparency throughout the endorsement process.
The issue is particularly relevant in an era when an advertisement does not remain confined to television. A campaign can move from television to YouTube, Instagram, short-video platforms and other digital spaces within hours.
The Maharashtra FDA’s request for details about the platforms and duration of dissemination reflects this changing advertising environment. (The Indian Express)
The Road Ahead for Ajay Devgn, Tiger Shroff and Shah Rukh Khan
For now, the three actors remain at different stages of the same regulatory process.
Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff have reportedly submitted their responses, giving the Maharashtra FDA material to consider as it evaluates the concerns raised in the notices.
Shah Rukh Khan’s response is reportedly still awaited.
None of these developments should be treated as a final determination of wrongdoing. The regulator must consider the explanations and evidence before deciding whether further action is justified.
The eventual outcome could depend on several factors: the exact nature of the Vimal Elaichi product, the structure and wording of the advertising campaign, the relationship between the different Vimal products, the contractual arrangements involving the actors, and the extent of the due diligence undertaken before the endorsements.
What makes the story especially significant is that it brings a familiar feature of Bollywood culture—the celebrity advertisement—into direct contact with increasingly assertive regulatory enforcement.
Conclusion
The Maharashtra FDA’s action against Ajay Devgn, Tiger Shroff and Shah Rukh Khan has opened a wider discussion about the responsibilities attached to celebrity endorsements and the increasingly complicated boundaries of brand advertising.
Devgn and Shroff have reportedly now responded to the regulator, while Khan’s response remains awaited. The next stage will depend on how the FDA evaluates the explanations and supporting documents.
At the heart of the dispute is a deceptively simple question: is the Vimal Elaichi campaign an advertisement for an independent product, or does its branding and presentation indirectly promote a pan masala product that is prohibited in Maharashtra?
That question has implications well beyond one advertisement.
It touches on consumer perception, public-health policy, advertising ethics and the extraordinary influence Bollywood celebrities have over brand recognition. It also highlights the challenges regulators face in an age when companies can extend familiar brand identities into multiple categories and distribute promotional content across countless digital platforms.
For the actors involved, the immediate priority is responding to the regulator’s concerns. For the advertising industry, however, the case may serve as a reminder that celebrity visibility comes with increasing scrutiny.
As India continues to strengthen its approach to misleading advertising and prohibited-product promotion, the relationship between celebrities, brands and consumers is likely to face even closer examination.
For now, the matter remains unresolved. Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff have reportedly provided their explanations. Shah Rukh Khan’s response is still awaited. And the final word on whether the Vimal Elaichi campaign crossed the regulatory line will ultimately rest with the authorities examining the evidence.
