FDA Commissioner Mundhe tells celebrities: Influence is not immunity
Weeks after Maharashtra's FDA issued show-cause notices to Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff over a Vimal Elaichi advertisement, Commissioner Tukaram Mundhe posted on X that "influence is not immunity", adding that no one is above the law and no commercial interest can take precedence over public health. He shared a 35-second video of President Droupadi Murmu urging actors not to endorse harmful food products. Mundhe said two actors replied to the August 11 notices and one missed the deadline.
Source
Indian Express — Cities · read the original report ↗
Desk check · compared with the source
What the desk checked (5)
- Maharashtra FDA Commissioner Tukaram Mundhe posted 'Influence is not immunity' on X on Wednesday afternoon. — Directly attributed to Mundhe's X post dated September 23, 2026, and quoted at length in the source.
- FDA issued show-cause notices on August 11 to Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff over the Vimal Elaichi advertisement, giving 15 days to respond. — Dates and 15-day deadline appear in the source, attributed to the FDA action; no notice document cited.
- Two of the three actors replied and one missed the deadline. — Attributed to Mundhe; no independent confirmation in the source.
- Mundhe shared a 35-second video of President Droupadi Murmu urging actors not to endorse harmful food products. — Video length and Hindi quotes described in the source; quotes are paraphrased translations.
- Delhi High Court dismissed PB Agro LLP's plea to quash the notices for lack of territorial jurisdiction. — Court outcome stated in the source without case number or bench details.
Analysts’ view opinion
What began as a regulatory action is now being framed as a political message. By pairing his warning with a video of President Droupadi Murmu's appeal, FDA Commissioner Tukaram Mundhe has lifted the issue from one official's initiative to a moral position blessed by the highest constitutional office — a difficult thing for anyone to attack publicly. Taking on Bollywood's biggest names gives him strong political ground in public health, but the real test is whether the case holds up in the files and in the courts.
- Attaching the President's video is strategically shrewd — it recasts the action as aligned with a broad national moral consensus rather than one officer's hard line.
- Acting against celebrity endorsements is a low-cost, high-approval issue; few political actors will openly oppose a stand framed around public health.
- Of the three notices, two actors replied and one missed the deadline — that single non-response risks becoming the focal point of public and political pressure.
- Pan masala and surrogate advertising involve significant commercial interests, so pushback is likelier to surface through legal and administrative channels than open political confrontation.
- The Delhi High Court's dismissal on territorial jurisdiction is not a win on merits, but it still hands Mundhe short-term political and administrative momentum.
What to watch — Watch for the FDA's next step against the actor who did not respond in time, whether Maharashtra's political leadership publicly endorses this stand, and whether other states follow the same route.
The story does not establish any political party or government involvement behind the move, nor that any actor has been found in violation — the notices remain at the allegation stage and the contents of the replies are not public.
Deep dive
Research brief · 8 facts · 3 dates · exam-readyThe brief
Context
Maharashtra's Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued show-cause notices on August 11 to Bollywood actors Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff over their Vimal Elaichi advertisement, alleging it amounted to surrogate advertising for Vimal Pan Masala, a product prohibited in the state. FDA Commissioner Tukaram Mundhe followed this up with a post on X saying "influence is not immunity", stressing that no commercial interest can take precedence over public health. He amplified a 35-second video of President Droupadi Murmu urging famous actors not to endorse food products harmful to health. A related challenge by the brand's master licensee, PB Agro LLP, was dismissed by the Delhi High Court for lack of territorial jurisdiction.
Key facts
- Maharashtra FDA issued show-cause notices on August 11 to Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff over the Vimal Elaichi advertisement.
- The notices gave the three actors 15 days to respond and directed them to stop appearing in the advertisement.
- FDA Commissioner Tukaram Mundhe posted "Influence is not immunity" on X on Wednesday afternoon, September 23, 2026.
- Mundhe said two of the three actors submitted replies, while one failed to respond within the deadline.
- The notices allege the Vimal Elaichi ad amounted to surrogate advertising for Vimal Pan Masala, a product prohibited in Maharashtra.
- Mundhe shared a 35-second video of President Droupadi Murmu urging popular actors not to endorse products harmful to health.
- In the clip the President said in Hindi, "A star is one that spreads light, not darkness."
- The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition by PB Agro LLP seeking to quash the notices, holding that it lacked territorial jurisdiction.
Timeline
- August 11Maharashtra FDA issues show-cause notices to Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff, giving 15 days to reply and asking them to stop appearing in the ad.
- After the notices (date not stated in the source)Two actors submit replies; one fails to respond within the deadline. Delhi High Court dismisses PB Agro LLP's plea to quash the notices for want of territorial jurisdiction.
- September 23, 2026 (Wednesday)Commissioner Tukaram Mundhe posts "Influence is not immunity" on X with a 35-second video of President Droupadi Murmu.
Who has a stake
- Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration (FDA) — Regulator enforcing the state's prohibition on pan masala and acting against alleged surrogate advertising.
- Tukaram Mundhe, FDA Commissioner — Driving the enforcement drive and publicly framing celebrity endorsement as a legal and public-health responsibility.
- Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn, Tiger Shroff — Face show-cause notices; two have replied, one missed the deadline; directed to stop appearing in the advertisement.
- PB Agro LLP — Master licensee for manufacture and sale of Vimal-brand elaichi and pan masala without tobacco; its plea to quash the notices was dismissed.
- President Droupadi Murmu — Publicly appealed to famous actors not to endorse food products harmful to health, citing their influence on youth.
- Consumers, especially the youth — Exposed to celebrity-endorsed products that the state says raise public health concerns.
Why it matters
The case tests whether celebrities can be held individually accountable for endorsements of products banned or restricted on public health grounds, rather than only the manufacturers. It also puts surrogate advertising — promoting a permitted variant to keep a prohibited brand visible — under regulatory and judicial scrutiny. With the President herself appealing to actors, the issue moves from a legal notice to a wider debate on the ethics of influence.
UPSC angle
Prelims pointers
- Maharashtra FDA issued show-cause notices on August 11 to Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff over the Vimal Elaichi ad.
- Tukaram Mundhe is the Commissioner of Maharashtra's Food and Drug Administration; his X post read "Influence is not immunity".
- Pan masala is a prohibited product in Maharashtra; the notices allege surrogate advertising for Vimal Pan Masala.
- PB Agro LLP is the master licensee for Vimal-brand elaichi and pan masala not containing tobacco.
- The Delhi High Court dismissed PB Agro LLP's quashing petition on grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction.
- President Droupadi Murmu, in a 35-second clip, urged famous actors not to endorse food products harmful to health.
Mains framing
The Vimal Elaichi notices illustrate the regulatory gap that surrogate advertising exploits: where a product such as pan masala is prohibited in a state, a permitted variant carrying the same brand name, colours and celebrity face can sustain recall for the banned product, making the ban partly cosmetic. Maharashtra's FDA has responded by targeting not just the manufacturer but the endorsers, issuing show-cause notices on August 11 with a 15-day window and directing the actors to stop appearing in the advertisement; Commissioner Tukaram Mundhe's framing — "influence is not immunity", "no commercial interest can take precedence over public health" — signals that celebrity reach is being treated as a duty rather than a shield. The litigation dimension is equally instructive: PB Agro LLP's attempt to have the notices quashed failed in the Delhi High Court on territorial jurisdiction, suggesting that forum choice cannot easily neutralise state-level enforcement. Compliance, however, remains uneven, with two actors replying and one missing the deadline. The way forward implied by the source lies in consistent enforcement of state prohibitions, accountability of endorsers alongside manufacturers, and moral suasion of the kind exercised by President Droupadi Murmu, who asked famous actors not to endorse food products harmful to health.
Key terms
- Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Maharashtra
- State regulator for food and drugs that issued the show-cause notices over the Vimal Elaichi advertisement.
- Show-cause notice
- A formal notice asking a party to explain its conduct within a set period — here 15 days from August 11.
- Surrogate advertising
- Advertising a permitted product to indirectly promote a prohibited one; alleged here for Vimal Pan Masala via Vimal Elaichi.
- Territorial jurisdiction
- A court's authority over matters arising within its geographic limits; the Delhi High Court found it lacked this in the PB Agro plea.
- Master licensee
- Entity licensed to manufacture and sell under a brand — PB Agro LLP for Vimal elaichi and pan masala without tobacco.
Practice questions
- Discuss the regulatory challenge posed by surrogate advertising of prohibited products, using the Maharashtra FDA's action over the Vimal Elaichi advertisement as a case study.
- Should celebrity endorsers be held legally accountable for promoting products banned or restricted on public health grounds? Examine with reference to recent state-level enforcement.
- Examine the interplay between state regulatory action, judicial review on jurisdictional grounds, and moral suasion by constitutional authorities in advertising regulation in India.
Grounded only in the source report — figures and dates are the source's, not inferred.