The Delhi High Court is poised to announce its decision on whether it holds the authority to adjudicate a request made by PB Agro LLP regarding show-cause notices issued to prominent brand ambassadors, including Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn, and Tiger Shroff. These notices, issued by the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration (FDA), allege that Vimal Elaichi advertisements constitute surrogate promotion of the banned Vimal Pan Masala, a chewable product in Maharashtra.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, who has reserved judgment on the court’s jurisdiction, is expected to deliver the ruling on September 14. The company, PB Agro LLP, claims that it invests in well-known actors to promote its cardamom product, marketed under the Vimal brand, and that it fully complies with existing legal frameworks in its advertising efforts.

Allegations and Regulatory Notices

In its legal petition, PB Agro LLP contends that the Maharashtra FDA issued notices claiming the advertisements for Vimal Elaichi effectively promote the banned Vimal Pan Masala. As part of the regulatory scrutiny, the FDA requested that the actors involved in the advertisements provide documentation to distinguish Vimal Elaichi from the prohibited pan masala products, and also mandated the cessation of all related promotions from digital platforms.

Counsel representing the petitioner has argued that the FDA’s notice, issued on August 11, was directed solely at the actors without addressing the company itself, despite the potential for any regulatory action to cause significant damage to the business. The legal representatives assert that PB Agro LLP was not afforded an opportunity to present its case prior to the issuance of these notices.

Additionally, the petitioner argues that the Maharashtra FDA overstepped its jurisdiction by attempting to halt advertisements. The petition also states that allegations of surrogate advertising are unfounded, particularly since Vimal Pan Masala has not been produced or marketed in Maharashtra since 2001, and tobacco-containing pan masala has been prohibited nationwide by the Supreme Court since 2013.

Counterarguments from Regulatory Authorities

Representatives for the Central Government and the Central Consumer Protection Authority have countered that the legal petition should have been directed to the Bombay High Court, given that the notices were issued by the Maharashtra state authorities. Their position suggests that the Delhi High Court does not have jurisdiction over this matter due to the specific involvement of regional regulatory issues.

The outcome of this legal battle remains pending, with the Delhi High Court expected to clarify whether it has the jurisdiction to proceed with this case. The decision could have implications not only for PB Agro LLP but also for the brand ambassadors involved, as well as for broader advertising practices related to products that may face scrutiny under local laws.

This ruling reflects ongoing tensions between regulatory frameworks and commercial advertising practices in India, particularly in the context of contested products within local jurisdictions. The implications of the court’s ruling will likely resonate within the broader advertising industry, particularly for brands leveraging celebrity endorsements amidst stringent compliance requirements.

Long or Short, get news the way you like. No ads. No redirections. Download Newspin and Stay Alert, The CSR Journal Mobile app, for fast, crisp, clean updates!

App Store –  https://apps.apple.com/in/app/newspin/id6746449540 

Google Play Store – https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.inventifweb.newspin&pcampaignid=web_share