Madras High Court Dismisses PIL Against Vimal Elaichi Ads Over Surrogate Pan Masala Promotion Allegations

The Madras High Court on Wednesday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking action against P.B. Agro LLP over its Vimal Elaichi advertisements. The petitioner alleged that the advertisements were surrogate promotions for Vimal Pan Masala and gutkha.

The court held that the allegations were based on suspicion and unverified material.

It observed that "A writ court does not order inquiries on the chance that something may turn up."

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan held that determining whether an advertisement amounts to surrogate advertising is a question of fact. The competent authorities must examine this under food safety and consumer protection laws.

"The allegation that the advertisement is surrogate is a question of fact. The answer depends on whether the advertised product is genuinely sold, how it is packaged and marketed, what the advertisement says and shows, and what the advertiser intended. The Food Safety and Standards Act, the Consumer Protection Act and the other laws cited already give the competent authorities the power to examine these matters, hear the advertiser and decide. We cannot declare the campaign surrogate on the basis of the affidavit filed by the petitioner, without any concrete substantiating material", the court ruled.

The PIL was filed by D. Rakesh, a resident of Madurai, who alleged that P.B. Agro LLP was using advertisements for Vimal Elaichi to indirectly promote Vimal Pan Masala. He sought directions to the authorities to investigate the company's advertising campaign, take appropriate action and direct it to discontinue the alleged surrogate advertisements.

The petitioner relied on media reports that the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration had issued show-cause notices to three film actors in August 2026 over the advertisements. He also alleged that Tamil Nadu authorities had failed to take action against the company.

The Bench observed that the petitioner's case rested on suspicion. It noted that he accepted that Elaichi was a recognised food product registered with the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI). He also accepted that no law prohibited its advertisement.

The petitioner further admitted that he had not found any gutkha or tobacco product being sold by P.B. Agro LLP under the Vimal brand. His contention was that the possibility of such a product could not be ruled out.

The court held that determining whether an advertisement is surrogate depends on several factors. These include whether the advertised product is genuinely sold, how it is packaged and marketed, what the advertisement says and shows, and the advertiser's intention.

It observed that the relevant laws already empowered competent authorities to examine these aspects. They could hear the advertiser and decide whether the campaign amounted to surrogate advertising.

The Bench further held that a writ of mandamus requires an identifiable legal duty and a failure to discharge it. Although the petitioner alleged that authorities had taken no action, he admitted that he had not made any representation to them before approaching the court.

He could have first raised his grievance with the Commissioner of Food Safety or the Central Consumer Protection Authority, the court observed.

The court also noted that the Maharashtra notices merely recorded a prima facie view and sought explanations. They were not final findings. One of the actors had challenged his notice before the Bombay High Court, where the matter remained pending.

Since the notices were based on a prohibition order specific to Maharashtra, they could not form the basis for directing Tamil Nadu authorities to initiate proceedings against the company.

Holding that the PIL was premature and lacked merit, the Bench dismissed it without imposing costs.

For Petitioner: Senior Advocate Santosh Paul, Advocate Arul Gnanaprakash

For Respondents: M.Guruprasad, State Government Pleader for R2 and R4. V.Chandrasekaran, Senior Panel Counsel for R1, R3 and R5