Vimal Elaichi Row: Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff Respond to FDA Notices; Two Hearings Completed

All Three Actors Have Now Responded to FDA Notices

The Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration’s proceedings over the Vimal Elaichi advertisement featuring Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff have moved to the next stage.

Maharashtra FDA Commissioner Tukaram Mundhe has confirmed that responses from all three actors have now been received. He also said that two of the three actors requested hearings and both hearings were completed on Monday. The commissioner did not disclose which two actors sought the hearings.

Mundhe said the FDA would now proceed further with the matter.

What Tukaram Mundhe Said?

Speaking to reporters in Mumbai, Mundhe said that responses had been received from all three actors and that two had specifically requested hearings.

He said the hearings had concluded and that the department was now moving forward with the proceedings. The commissioner did not publicly identify the actors who requested hearings.

This is a significant update from the position earlier in September, when the FDA had said that one of the three actors had not responded to the notices and proceedings had begun in that case.

Why Did Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff Receive Notices?

The Maharashtra FDA issued show-cause notices to Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff on August 11, 2026, concerning their appearance in a Vimal Elaichi advertisement.

According to the regulator, the campaign could amount to indirect or surrogate promotion of Vimal Pan Masala, which is prohibited in Maharashtra. The FDA argued that the use of the Vimal branding in the elaichi advertisement could create an association with the pan masala product.

The actors were asked to explain their role in the advertising campaign and were initially given 15 days to respond.

The Issue of Surrogate Advertising

At the centre of the dispute is the concept of surrogate advertising.

In its earlier explanation of the case, the Indian Express described surrogate advertising as a marketing practice in which a restricted or prohibited product can potentially be promoted indirectly through another product carrying the same or closely associated brand identity.

The Maharashtra FDA's position is that the Vimal Elaichi campaign may have created such an association with Vimal Pan Masala.

The actors' responses are now part of the regulatory proceedings, but the contents of their individual replies have not been publicly disclosed in the latest update.

Earlier Responses Were Not Fully Known

The case has seen several updates over the past few weeks.

On August 26, the Maharashtra FDA had said it had not yet received responses from the three actors.

By September 18, Commissioner Mundhe told NDTV that two of the three actors had responded while one had not, although he did not identify them. At that point, the FDA said it had started adjudication and prosecution proceedings in relation to the actor who had not responded within the stipulated period.

The latest statement from September 29 therefore changes the position: the FDA now says replies from all three actors have been received. 

FDA Says Celebrity Status Does Not Change Regulatory Responsibility

The commissioner had previously stressed that the actors' status as Bollywood stars would not determine how the regulator handled the matter.

In an interview with NDTV earlier this month, Mundhe said the actors were being considered in their capacity as advertisers in the case. He also argued that advertising regulations can place responsibilities on the person or institution promoting a product, including the need to exercise due diligence regarding what is being endorsed.

Those remarks came after the regulator began examining the advertisement under provisions concerning misleading food advertising.

What Does the Law Say?

The FDA's notices cited provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 relating to misleading advertisements.

According to reporting on the original notices, Section 24 restricts misleading food advertisements, while Section 53 provides for penalties in cases involving misleading food advertisements. The Indian Express reported that the notices stated that endorsers could face a penalty of up to ₹10 lakh under the relevant provision.

The eventual outcome, however, will depend on the regulatory proceedings and the responses submitted by the parties involved.

Delhi High Court Also Considered the Vimal Challenge

The regulatory dispute has also involved legal proceedings concerning the notices.

The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition filed by PB Agro LLP, described as the master licensee for Vimal Elaichi and pan masala products without tobacco, challenging the Maharashtra FDA notices. The court held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the challenge.

That ruling did not amount to a final determination of whether the actors' advertisement violated the underlying advertising regulations; it concerned the jurisdictional challenge brought before the Delhi High Court.

What Happens Next?

With responses from all three actors now received and two requested hearings completed, the Maharashtra FDA says it will proceed further with the case.

The identities of the two actors who requested hearings have not been officially disclosed in the latest statement. Likewise, the detailed contents of the actors' replies have not been made public.

The next significant development will therefore be the FDA's subsequent action after considering the responses and hearing proceedings.

The Celebrity Hour Take

The latest development changes the immediate status of the Vimal Elaichi dispute: the issue is no longer about whether the three actors have responded to the notices. According to the FDA commissioner, all three have now submitted responses, and two have completed hearings.

The more substantive question is what the regulator concludes after examining those responses.

For readers, it is important to distinguish the FDA's allegations and ongoing proceedings from a final finding of liability. The regulator has alleged that the advertisement amounted to surrogate promotion, while the actors have now had an opportunity to respond through the notice and hearing process.

Until the FDA completes its proceedings and announces its next action, the final regulatory outcome remains unresolved.

Sources & Verification

This report was prepared using the latest statements attributed to Maharashtra FDA Commissioner Tukaram Mundhe, including his September 29 update confirming responses from all three actors and hearings for two of them. Earlier reporting from The Indian Express, Hindustan Times, NDTV, PTI and Bollywood Hungama was used to establish the timeline of the notices, earlier response status and regulatory context. The latest development is clearly distinguished from earlier reports because the status of the actors' responses changed during the course of the proceedings.