The Vimal Elaichi Promotion Question
Advertising is often described as the art of association. A product is not merely presented; it is connected to aspiration, glamour, success and social recognition. That is why the controversy surrounding the Vimal Elaichi advertisement featuring Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff deserves attention beyond the immediate question of celebrity endorsements. At its heart lies a larger public-interest issue: when does the promotion of a legal product become a disguised advertisement for a restricted or prohibited one?
The Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued show-cause notices to the three actors, alleging that the Vimal Elaichi campaign may amount to surrogate advertising for Vimal Pan Masala. The regulator argues that the advertisement’s brand name, presentation, dialogue and wider market context may create an association with a tobacco-related product prohibited in Maharashtra. The actors have been asked to explain their role and provide details of their contracts, campaign brief, payments, advertising platforms and due diligence.
A show-cause notice is not a finding of guilt. It is an opportunity to respond before further action is considered. Yet the notices raise a serious question that cannot be dismissed as a mere technical dispute between a regulator, a company and celebrities. If advertising rules can be defeated simply by attaching a restricted brand name to an apparently harmless product, then public-health regulation becomes ineffective.
The logic of surrogate advertising
Surrogate advertising works through memory. A company may be unable, or legally prohibited, from advertising cigarettes, tobacco, alcohol or certain pan masala products directly. It may therefore promote another product—such as a mouth freshener, soda, music CD or club—using the same brand name, colours, logo, packaging style and celebrity associations.
The formal advertisement appears to sell the legal product. But the communication may also keep the restricted product alive in the public imagination. Consumers do not encounter the advertised item in isolation; they interpret it in the context of the brand’s entire product range and public identity.
This is the central issue in the Vimal Elaichi case. The question is not simply whether elaichi exists as a separate product or whether the advertisement uses technically accurate words. The deeper question is whether the campaign’s real commercial effect is to strengthen the identity of Vimal Pan Masala among consumers.
The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 defines a misleading advertisement broadly. It includes advertisements that falsely describe a product, mislead consumers about its nature or quality, make representations that would amount to an unfair trade practice, or deliberately conceal important information. The 2022 guidelines issued under the consumer-protection framework define surrogate advertising as the promotion of a restricted product by presenting it as an advertisement for another product whose advertising is not prohibited.
This definition recognises an important reality: deception can occur through implication, not only through an explicit false statement. An advertisement need not say “buy tobacco” to encourage tobacco-related brand recognition. Sometimes the brand itself is the message.
The celebrity responsibility
The presence of three major actors gives the campaign an influence that an ordinary advertisement would not possess. Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff are not anonymous models. Their images carry trust, aspiration and cultural power, particularly among young viewers.
Celebrity advertising is based on the belief that audiences transfer some of their admiration for the celebrity to the product. This is why companies pay enormous sums for endorsements. The celebrity’s role is not decorative; it is central to the communication strategy.
That commercial power must be accompanied by responsibility. A celebrity cannot reasonably argue that the advertisement’s legal wording alone settles the matter. Endorsers should ask what product the campaign is really promoting, how the brand is known in the marketplace, whether the advertised product is independently marketed, and whether the campaign resembles earlier advertising for a restricted product.
The FDA has specifically sought information on the due diligence carried out by the actors and their representatives. It has also asked whether Vimal Elaichi is an independent product genuinely available in the market or a brand-extension communication intended to promote Vimal Pan Masala or related tobacco products.
This is a welcome direction. Celebrity accountability should not mean automatic punishment, but neither should fame provide immunity. If an endorser is expected to check whether a financial product is legitimate or whether a health claim is scientifically supported, the same principle should apply to products connected with tobacco and addiction.
Public health cannot be reduced to branding
The controversy is particularly significant because Maharashtra has prohibited gutkha and pan masala containing tobacco or nicotine since 2012 under the Food Safety and Standards Act. The prohibition has been renewed, with the current order taking effect on July 13, 2026. The state’s enforcement drive has included raids, seizures, arrests and action against supply networks.
These measures reflect the serious health consequences associated with tobacco consumption. Tobacco use contributes to cancer, cardiovascular disease, respiratory illness and addiction. Pan masala and gutkha may also become entry points to tobacco use, particularly when branding and celebrity culture make them appear fashionable or harmless.
An advertisement that normalises a brand associated with such products can undermine the purpose of the prohibition even if it displays a tobacco-free product. It may also make the distinction between “tobacco” and “tobacco-free” versions confusing for consumers.
The industry’s likely defence is that a tobacco-free product is legal and that a company has the right to advertise a lawful business. That argument cannot be ignored. The Delhi High Court has previously observed that a company has a fundamental right to carry on the business of pan masala without tobacco, so long as it has constitutional sanction. Earlier proceedings concerning Vimal Elaichi also showed that the question of surrogate advertising remained legally contested.
But the right to conduct a lawful business does not include an unlimited right to advertise in a misleading manner. Freedom of trade exists alongside consumer protection and public-health obligations. The distinction must therefore be made carefully: regulators should not ban an advertisement merely because a company also sells another product, but they must intervene where the evidence shows that the legal product is being used as a vehicle for prohibited brand promotion.
The importance of evidence
The regulator’s case must be based on evidence, not assumption. A brand association by itself may not always prove surrogate advertising. Many companies operate in multiple categories, and the existence of a restricted product under a similar name does not automatically make every lawful product illegal to promote.
The authorities should examine several factors:
- Whether Vimal Elaichi is manufactured, distributed and sold as a genuine standalone product.
- Whether the product has meaningful sales and distribution independent of pan masala.
- Whether the packaging, logo, colours and slogans reproduce the identity of the restricted product.
- Whether the advertisement resembles earlier Vimal Pan Masala campaigns.
- Whether the same celebrities, music, dialogue or visual style have been used for the restricted product.
- Whether consumers are likely to understand the campaign as an advertisement for elaichi or as a reminder of pan masala.
- Whether the company’s media spending and brand strategy demonstrate an intention to maintain visibility for the restricted product.
This approach would protect both public health and legitimate commercial activity. It would also prevent arbitrary enforcement. A transparent, evidence-based standard is better than relying on official suspicion or public outrage.
Regulation must keep pace with advertising
The Vimal Elaichi dispute exposes a weakness in India’s advertising system: regulation is divided among several laws and authorities. The Food Safety and Standards Act, the Consumer Protection Act, the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act and advertising guidelines may all become relevant. This fragmentation can create uncertainty for regulators, advertisers, celebrities and consumers.
The law should clearly identify who is responsible for a surrogate advertisement. Responsibility may extend to the manufacturer, brand owner, advertising agency, broadcaster, digital platform and endorser, depending on their knowledge and participation.
The Consumer Protection Act allows penalties for misleading advertisements, including penalties of up to ₹10 lakh and higher penalties for subsequent violations. It also permits restrictions on endorsers for specified periods. The FDA has cited these provisions while asking the actors to explain why action should not be initiated.
However, punishment after a campaign has achieved widespread visibility is not enough. Regulatory review should occur before release, particularly when an advertisement concerns a brand linked to tobacco, alcohol, gambling, medicines or financial risk. Advertisers should be required to maintain documentary proof that a product is independently marketed and that the campaign does not exploit a prohibited brand identity.
Digital media makes this need more urgent. Television advertisements may be withdrawn, but clips can continue circulating through social-media accounts, fan pages and short-video platforms. A campaign can therefore remain active long after its official broadcast has stopped.
A test for the advertising industry
The advertising industry should treat this controversy as a test of professional ethics. Legal compliance is the minimum standard; responsible communication requires more. An agency may be able to construct a technically defensible advertisement, but it should still ask whether the campaign defeats the spirit of public-health regulation.
The same principle applies to celebrities. Endorsement contracts should include clear clauses requiring product verification, disclosure of the product’s ownership and manufacturing details, and protection against brand-extension strategies. Celebrities should not rely entirely on agencies or companies to conduct due diligence.
Consumers, too, deserve honesty. If the purpose is genuinely to promote cardamom or a mouth freshener, the campaign should be able to do so without borrowing the imagery and recognition associated with a prohibited product. A genuinely independent product should build its own identity rather than depend on ambiguity.
The Vimal Elaichi controversy is therefore not merely about three actors or one advertisement. It is about whether advertising law will be interpreted literally or meaningfully. A narrow interpretation asks: “Does the advertisement show a legal product?” A stronger interpretation asks: “What does the advertisement actually communicate, and what commercial behaviour does it encourage?”
That second question is the one regulators must answer.
The actors should receive a fair opportunity to respond, and the company should be heard before any final conclusion is reached. But the broader lesson is already clear. Public-health safeguards cannot be defeated by changing the label on the advertisement while preserving the same brand memory in the consumer’s mind.
Advertising has the power to shape habits, especially among the young. With that power comes a duty to avoid disguising harmful products behind attractive names, glamorous faces and clever slogans. The marketplace deserves freedom, but consumers deserve clarity—and public health deserves priority.
Download Pdf
