Madras HC Dismisses PIL Against Vimal Elaichi Ad Alleging Surrogate Advertisement [Read Order]

Chennai: The Madras High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking action against the advertisements for “Vimal Elaichi”, alleged to be a disguised promotion of Vimal Pan Masala, holding that the petition was premature and lacked merit as it rested on suspicion and media reports, and that the petitioner had not first complained to any authority. 

A Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan passed the order on 11 November 2026 in W.P. No. 45614 of 2026, with no order as to costs.

The petition was filed by D. Rakesh of Madurai against the Union of India, the State of Tamil Nadu, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, the Commissioner of Food Safety, the Central Consumer Protection Authority and P.B. Agro LLP, the sixth respondent. He sought a writ of mandamus directing an enquiry and action against the sixth respondent under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and its regulations, the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and the CCPA Guidelines of 2022, the tobacco law (COTPA) and the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994, and a direction to stop what he called surrogate or deceptive advertising of pan masala or gutkha in the guise of promoting the product Elaichi.

According to the petition, the sixth respondent makes both Pan Masala and Kesar Elaichi under the common brand “Vimal”, both registered with the FSSAI, and advertises Vimal Elaichi on television, print, social media and hoardings using three well-known film actors. The petitioner said that the brand is known for pan masala, that it is hard to believe a company would spend so much to sell cardamom, and that the campaign is therefore a surrogate advertisement. He relied on media reports that, in August 2026, the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration issued show-cause notices to the three actors, under a Maharashtra prohibition order dated 13.07.2026.

The Court said that public interest litigation is an extraordinary remedy which demands rigorous and credible material and cannot be set in motion on speculation, internet rumours or unverified news reports. It then gave four reasons for holding that the petition could not go forward.

First, the key averments were made on the footing that the petitioner was “advised” or had “learnt through social media”. The show-cause notices from Maharashtra record a prima facie view and are not findings, one of the actors has challenged his notice before the Bombay High Court, and they rest on a prohibition order specific to that State. An action taken by one State, at a preliminary stage, gave the Court no basis to direct the authorities in Tamil Nadu to proceed against anyone.

Second, the case rested on suspicion. The petitioner accepted that Elaichi is a recognised food product registered with the FSSAI and that no law bars its advertisement, and admitted that he found no gutka or tobacco product sold by the sixth respondent under the Vimal brand, saying only that such a possibility “cannot be ruled out”. The Court said that a writ court “does not order inquiries on the chance that something may turn up”.

Third, whether the advertisement is surrogate is a question of fact, depending 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 competent authorities under the Food Safety and Standards Act, the Consumer Protection Act and the other laws have the power to examine it, hear the advertiser and decide, and the Court could not declare the campaign surrogate on the petitioner’s affidavit.

Fourth, a mandamus needs a legal duty and a failure to perform it. The petitioner said the respondents were not taking action but admitted in his affidavit that he had made no representation to any of them. The Court said that an authority never told of a grievance cannot be said to have ignored it, and that the petitioner could have complained to the Commissioner of Food Safety or the CCPA but chose to come directly to the Court.

The Court did not examine the advertisements themselves or hold that the campaign is lawful, and the order does not bar the authorities from acting on a proper complaint. The connected miscellaneous application was closed.

Appearances: For the Petitioner: Mr. Santhosh Paul, Senior Counsel, for Mr. Arul Gnanaprakash. For the State (Respondents 2 and 4): Mr. M. Guruprasad, State Government Pleader. For the Union, FSSAI and CCPA (Respondents 1, 3 and 5): Mr. V. Chandrasekaran, Senior Panel Counsel.

Case Title: D. Rakesh v. Union of India and Others, W.P. No. 45614 of 2026

[Read Order]