Delhi HC hears challenge to Vimal Elaichi ad proceedings

MUMBAI: The Vimal Elaichi ad battle has moved from the billboard to the courtroom. The Delhi High Court on Monday heard a challenge to proceedings initiated by the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over a Vimal Elaichi advertisement, with the petitioner questioning whether food safety authorities can halt an advertising campaign or ask celebrity endorsers to withdraw social media promotions without first establishing a prima facie violation.

The matter, W.P.(C) 12664/2026, was heard by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma. At the heart of the dispute is the extent of powers available to the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) and state food safety authorities under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, particularly when the regulatory action concerns advertising rather than the safety or composition of a food product.

The petitioner argued that authorities should not stop advertisements or require brand ambassadors to publicly disassociate themselves from a product without first hearing the affected parties and determining whether there is a prima facie breach of the law.

The issue arises from Maharashtra FDA proceedings alleging that the Vimal Elaichi campaign amounts to surrogate advertising for Vimal Pan Masala. Show-cause proceedings have reportedly involved celebrities associated with the campaign, including Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff.

The petitioner’s counsel sought to distinguish the FSSAI’s powers from those of the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA), arguing that the latter has a specific statutory mandate to deal with misleading advertisements under consumer protection law.

Referring to Sections 24, 52 and 53 of the FSS Act, counsel argued that the food regulator’s role primarily concerns food safety, ingredients and prescribed standards. Section 53, the petitioner submitted, provides for a penalty but does not independently confer broad powers to order the removal of advertisements or celebrity endorsements.

The petitioner also questioned the legal basis for taking action over alleged surrogate advertising under the FSS framework while the underlying question of whether the product itself violates the law remains contested.

The Centre and CCPA, however, put a different question before the court: whether Delhi is the right courtroom for the dispute in the first place.

Appearing for the Union of India and CCPA, counsel objected to the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court, pointing to the show-cause notice and noting that it was issued in the name of the Government of Maharashtra.

The Centre argued that the proceedings originated in Maharashtra and that the individuals served with the notices, including the brand ambassadors, are based in Mumbai. The petitioner’s Delhi connection, it submitted, was not sufficient by itself to make the Delhi High Court the appropriate forum.

The Union also pointed out that the Maharashtra Government was not made a party to the proceedings, despite being the authority that issued the impugned show-cause notice.

The Centre further relied on Section 30 of the FSS Act, which provides for the appointment of a Commissioner of Food Safety by a state government for the efficient implementation of food safety and standards. The argument was that the Act gives state governments and their food safety machinery distinct statutory responsibilities, rather than placing all regulatory functions solely with the Centre or FSSAI.

With the Union appearing through video conference, counsel told the court that he was not in Delhi.

The hearing therefore shifted the immediate spotlight from the advertising dispute itself to territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner is challenging the extent of food safety authorities’ powers over advertising and celebrity endorsements, while the Centre and CCPA are contesting whether those questions can be examined by the Delhi High Court in the present proceedings.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma has reserved her verdict on the jurisdiction issue. That decision will determine whether the Delhi High Court goes on to examine the larger questions surrounding the Maharashtra FDA’s action and the scope of advertising-related powers under the FSS Act.