Bollywood’s most powerful currency is not money. It is an influence. And that is precisely why three of India’s biggest film stars – Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff – have found themselves on the wrong side of a food-safety regulator over something that, on the face of it, appears innocuous: a mouth-freshener advertisement.
The Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued show-cause notices to the three actors over their appearance in advertisements for Vimal Elaichi, alleging that the campaign could amount to surrogate or indirect advertising for Vimal Pan Masala, a product prohibited in Maharashtra.
The notices, issued in August, gave the actors 15 days to explain their role and provide supporting documents, including details of their endorsement arrangements and the due diligence undertaken before agreeing to the campaign. The regulator also directed them to discontinue participation and remove promotional material from their social-media platforms.
The FDA’s argument goes to the heart of one of India’s oldest advertising tricks: if the tobacco product cannot legally be advertised, advertise another product carrying the same brand name.
That is the world of surrogate advertising.
The law becomes particularly complicated when a brand is associated in the public mind with a prohibited or harmful product but appears in an advertisement selling something ostensibly legitimate. The regulator is effectively asking whether consumers see “Vimal Elaichi” simply as cardamom – or whether the Vimal name itself carries the memory and commercial identity of pan masala.
That distinction is crucial. The Maharashtra FDA says the advertisement’s presentation, dialogue, product branding and the wider market association of the Vimal name raise a serious question about whether it indirectly promotes a prohibited product. The action is being taken under provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, including restrictions concerning misleading food advertisements. Section 53 provides for a penalty of up to Rs 10 lakh for publishing or being party to the publication of a misleading food advertisement.
For the actors, therefore, this is not merely another advertising controversy. It raises the uncomfortable question of how much responsibility a celebrity carries for investigating the commercial identity and wider product portfolio of a brand before putting his or her face behind it.
Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff have reportedly submitted responses to the FDA. Shah Rukh Khan’s response was still awaited in the latest reports.
A much larger battle; The controversy comes against the backdrop of India’s long-running war against tobacco. India does not prohibit tobacco as a commodity. Instead, it has constructed an elaborate regulatory framework around its manufacture, sale, advertising and consumption.
The Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 – COTPA – restricts advertising, promotion and sponsorship of tobacco products, prohibits smoking in public places and restricts sale to minors and near educational institutions. Tobacco products must also carry specified pictorial health warnings.
Food law goes further in another important area. The Food Safety and Standards regulations prohibit tobacco and nicotine from being used as ingredients in food products, which is the legal basis for the prohibition of products such as gutkha.
The government’s tobacco-control machinery has long recognised that banning conventional advertising is not enough.
The Ministry of Health’s own Report on Tobacco Control in India identifies surrogate advertising, celebrity endorsement and “brand stretching” as persistent methods used to circumvent restrictions on tobacco advertising. It specifically notes that smokeless-tobacco advertising through surrogate means has remained a major challenge.
That makes the Vimal controversy particularly significant. It is precisely the kind of marketing strategy that tobacco-control authorities have warned about: maintain the visibility of a familiar brand while the legally restricted product itself remains outside conventional advertising channels.
Why smokeless tobacco is the bigger Indian problem; India’s tobacco problem is not simply about the cigarette. For millions of Indians, particularly in poorer and rural communities, tobacco is consumed by chewing rather than smoking. Gutkha, khaini, zarda and other forms of smokeless tobacco have become deeply embedded in everyday life.
The health consequences are severe. The government’s National Tobacco Control Programme describes tobacco use as a major risk factor for cancer, cardiovascular disease, chronic lung disease, stroke, tuberculosis and diseases of the oral cavity. India’s extensive use of smokeless tobacco has contributed to the country’s heavy burden of oral cancer.
This is why the government’s campaign against tobacco increasingly extends beyond cigarettes. Its public-health messaging is deliberately stark. Television and other mass-media campaigns have been used to show the consequences of tobacco consumption, while health-warning requirements put graphic reminders directly on tobacco packaging. The National Tobacco Control Programme says nationwide information, education and communication campaigns operate through print, television, radio and other media.
The message is brutally simple: tobacco kills. And yet popular culture can sometimes deliver the opposite message. When a glamorous Bollywood star appears in an advertisement associated with a mouth freshener, the image can potentially acquire a cultural legitimacy that a government health warning cannot easily undo.
The Pierce Brosnan warning. This is not the first time an international celebrity has been caught in India’s complicated pan-masala advertising universe. In 2016, former James Bond star Pierce Brosnan became embroiled in a controversy after appearing in a Pan Bahar campaign. Brosnan said he had believed he was promoting a breath freshener/tooth whitener and alleged that his image had been used deceptively to promote the wider pan-masala range. He apologised and sought removal of his image from the campaign.
The episode became a global embarrassment and demonstrated the enormous gap between how an apparently innocuous “mouth freshener” can be presented to an international celebrity and how the same brand may be understood in the Indian marketplace.
There was, however, a dispute over precisely what Brosnan knew. The manufacturer subsequently said that he had been aware he was endorsing pan masala and stressed that the particular product advertised contained no tobacco or nicotine.
That controversy remains relevant because it exposed the fundamental problem with surrogate marketing: the product shown in the advertisement and the product recognised by consumers may not be the same thing.
The tax weapon. Advertising is only one front in India’s tobacco-control campaign. Taxation is another.
The government has increasingly used the tax system to make tobacco products more expensive and, in theory, less attractive to consumers. In 2025, the Finance Ministry announced new central-excise arrangements covering chewing tobacco, jarda, scented tobacco and gutkha, effective from February 1, 2026.
The government’s broader objective is not simply to raise revenue. Tobacco taxation is recognised internationally as a public-health instrument: increasing prices can discourage consumption and make it harder for young people to begin the habit.
India’s battle is particularly difficult because tobacco is simultaneously a legal commercial commodity, a source of government revenue, a major agricultural and manufacturing industry, and a serious public-health threat. That contradiction explains the intensity of the regulatory campaign.
Can Bollywood remain above the law? The FDA’s notices to Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff therefore represent something larger than a dispute over an elaichi advertisement. They are a warning to India’s celebrity economy.
A film star is not merely another paid model. Millions of people recognise the face, imitate the style and absorb the brand association. When the celebrity is among India’s biggest stars, the advertising value can run into crores. That influence brings a corresponding responsibility.
The law may ultimately determine whether the Vimal Elaichi campaign crossed the line into prohibited surrogate advertising. The actors will have an opportunity to explain what they knew, what they were contracted to endorse and what due diligence they conducted.
But the larger ethical question is harder to evade. At a time when the government is spending public money telling Indians that smoking and chewing tobacco can cause cancer, should celebrities accept lucrative endorsements from brands whose identity is inseparable from products associated with tobacco and serious health risks?
The Maharashtra FDA has now forced that question into the open. The stars may have been hired to sell elaichi. The regulator wants to know whether consumers were actually being sold something else.