Fourteen years after Maharashtra's Food and Drug Administration (FDA) launched a crackdown on gutkha, pan masala and scented supari advertising, the battle over surrogate promotion has resurfaced, this time involving three Bollywood stars.

Former Maharashtra FDA Commissioner Mahesh Zagade, who led the 2012 crackdown, says the action forced gutkha and pan masala brands to pull advertisements from television and hoardings and dried up their sponsorship of Ganpati mandals in Mumbai and Pune.

Now, the FDA has issued show-cause notices to Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff over their endorsement of Vimal Elaichi, alleging that the campaign is a surrogate front to promote Vimal Pan Masala.

The notices were delivered to Khan's Mannat residence in Bandra, Devgn's bungalow in Juhu and Shroff's production firm. The actors have been asked to place their explanations on record and pull down promotional material from their social media and digital channels within 15 days.

The FDA has invoked Sections 24 and 53 of the Food Safety and Standards (FSS) Act, 2006, along with provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. It has alleged that the use of identical brand identity, dialogues and presentation creates deceptive brand recall for a prohibited product.

Zagade said the issue was tackled during his tenure more than a decade ago. “When I banned gutkha, pan masala, and scented supari back in 2012, it was the first time such a blanket ban was imposed in Maharashtra. The moment the ban took effect, all promotional advertisements were immediately taken off air and stripped from hoardings.”

Adv Jamshed Mistry, Bombay High Court, said Section 5 of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act (COTPA), 2003 prohibits direct and indirect advertising of tobacco products. “Surrogate advertising is strictly prohibited under the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act (COTPA), 2003. Section 5 prohibits direct and indirect advertising of tobacco products, and the statutory rules explicitly recognise the use of a tobacco product’s name or brand to promote other goods, services, or events as indirect advertising. If an ad for a product like elaichi is used as a vehicle to promote a banned brand, it attracts regulatory scrutiny.”

Zagade said the crackdown also hit corporate sponsorship of Ganpati mandals. “Back then, Ganpati mandals in Mumbai and Pune were heavily sponsored and flooded with hoardings by gutkha and pan masala giants. That year, their funding dried up completely. Many mandals approached me seeking exemptions, but I refused point-blank. For the next two years during my tenure, not a single ad appeared. If these ads crept back in, subsequent commissioners clearly failed to pursue the enforcement stringently.”

He said the FDA had also acted against celebrities over misleading endorsements. “I had issued personal notices to top actors for misleading endorsements—including fake joint-pain oils—and registered over 450 cases against fictitious claims under food and drug laws. When one veteran actor was confronted, he immediately withdrew. Ground-level action has to be sustained and systemic, not just occasional media hype.”

The case also raises questions about how much responsibility celebrity endorsers have to investigate the brands they promote, particularly where a brand is also associated with a restricted or prohibited product. Adv Behzd Irani and Adv Ruchika Sharma, Advocates, Bombay High Court, said the advertisement would have to be assessed as a whole.

“The FDA’s allegation essentially raises the question of whether the advertisement of an otherwise permissible product is being used to indirectly promote a prohibited product under the same brand umbrella,” they said.

“Legally, the mere use of a common brand name may not, by itself, establish surrogate advertising. The advertisement has to be considered in its entirety, including its presentation, packaging, brand recall, and the overall impression it creates upon the consumer. Importantly, a show-cause notice is an initiation of regulatory proceedings and should not be equated with a conclusive finding of contravention.”

They said celebrity endorsers should exercise greater due diligence when a brand has an established association with a restricted or prohibited product. “In such circumstances, due diligence should extend beyond verifying the legality of the product being advertised and should include an assessment of whether the campaign could reasonably be construed as indirect or surrogate promotion.”

The lawyers said the actors should cooperate with the FDA and submit relevant agreements, legal clearances and due-diligence material. They added that, unless removal has specifically been directed, a show-cause notice itself does not amount to a final finding of illegality, though continuing the campaign would require caution.

A copy of the show-cause notice issued by the Maharashtra FDA to the actors over the advertisement