Delhi High Court dismisses plea against surrogate advertising notices for Vimal Elaichi
2 sources · India
Who reported this
- The Indian Express
- Hindustan Times
What the colours mean
- Left
- Centre-left
- Centre
- Centre-right
- Right
- A hatched block means the outlet is affiliated with, or controlled by, a state.
Political lean describes where an outlet sits within the politics of its own country. It is never a position on a single global scale.
Political lean is comparable inside one country and not across them, which is why the bar groups by country first. Publicly funded broadcasters are not marked as state-linked.
The owner of each outlet is listed as a matter of record, not as a judgement about the outlet.
Every source for this story reports from India.
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by PB Agro LLP, the manufacturer of Vimal Elaichi, which challenged notices issued by the Maharashtra Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) to actors Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn, and Tiger Shroff. The Maharashtra FDA had issued the notices on August 11, alleging that the actors were engaging in surrogate advertising for pan masala, a prohibited food product in Maharashtra. The FDA directed the actors to stop endorsing the product and to disclose their due diligence regarding whether Vimal Elaichi was an independent product or a surrogate for pan masala or tobacco.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma ruled that the company failed to establish that any substantial or material part of the cause of action arose in Delhi. The court noted that the show cause notice was issued by the Mumbai based FDA to brand ambassadors who are residents of Mumbai regarding alleged violations in Maharashtra. While PB Agro impleaded the FSSAI and the ministry located in Delhi, the court found that no specific relief was claimed against them and no orders from those authorities were challenged.
Lawyer Rukmini Bobde, representing the Centre, argued that the company chose the Delhi court simply because it is based in the capital. Conversely, PB Agro's lawyer, Dayan Krishnan, argued that the advertisements were visible in Delhi and that the FSSAI lacked the jurisdiction to issue the notice. PB Agro claimed the notice was arbitrary and violative of the Constitution, maintaining that the campaign complied with laws and that the celebrities were engaged solely to endorse a cardamom product.
How each side framed it
- Centre
- The reporting focused on the legal outcome of the dismissal of the plea.
- Centre-right
- The reporting provided detailed legal reasoning from the judge and specific arguments from both the government and the company.
Sources
100% of the statements in this article were traced back to the source articles listed above.