The Madras High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking action against P.B. Agro LLP over its advertisements for “Vimal Elaichi”, which were alleged to be a disguised way of promoting Vimal Pan Masala.

The Court held that the petition rested on suspicion, social media and unverified media reports, and that a writ court does not order inquiries on the chance that something may turn up.

It observed that whether an advertisement is surrogate is a question of fact which the competent authorities under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and other laws are empowered to examine.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan observed, “This jurisdiction cannot be set in motion based on speculation, internet rumors, or unverified news reports lacking proper foundational research.”


Senior Advocate Santhosh Paul appeared for the Petitioner, while State Government Pleader M. Guruprasad and Senior Panel Counsel V. Chandrasekaran appeared for the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The petitioner alleged that P.B. Agro LLP manufactures both Pan Masala and Kesar Elaichi (cardamom with saffron) under the common brand “Vimal”, both registered with the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI). The company advertises Vimal Elaichi on television, in print, on social media and on hoardings, using three well-known film actors.

According to the petitioner, the Vimal brand is known for Pan Masala, and it is hard to believe that a company would spend so much to sell cardamom. He pleaded that the campaign was a surrogate advertisement in breach of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, the Advertising and Claims Regulations, 2018, the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the CCPA Guidelines of 2022, the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 and the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994.

The petitioner relied on media reports that in August 2026 the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration had issued show-cause notices to the three actors, stating that the advertisement appeared to link Vimal Elaichi with Vimal Pan Masala, which is prohibited in Maharashtra. He asserted that the authorities in Tamil Nadu had done nothing about the company, and sought a mandamus for an inquiry and a direction to stop the advertisement.

Contentions of the Petitioner

At the admission stage, the petitioner contended that the advertisement was surrogate on its face, that no one can claim protection under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution for such a campaign, and that the media reports from Maharashtra made out a prima facie case.

Observations/Findings of the Court

On the standard for public interest litigation, the Court observed, “He also admits that he found no gutka or tobacco product sold by the sixth respondent under the Vimal brand. He adds only that such a possibility “cannot be ruled out”. On that footing he wants this Court to order an inquiry under the tobacco law as well. A writ court does not order inquiries on the chance that something may turn up.”

The Court noted that most of the key averments were made on the footing that the petitioner was “advised” or had “learnt through social media”.

On the Maharashtra show-cause notices, it observed that they record a prima facie view and call for an explanation, and that they are not findings. It noted that one of the actors had challenged his notice before the Bombay High Court, and that the notices rested on a prohibition order specific to Maharashtra.

The Court noted that the petitioner accepted that Elaichi is a recognised food product, registered with the FSSAI, and that no law bars its advertisement.

On the surrogate advertisement allegation, the Court held that it 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. It observed, “We cannot declare the campaign surrogate on the basis of the affidavit filed by the petitioner, without any concrete substantiating material.”

On the prayer for mandamus, the Court noted that the petitioner claimed the authorities were not taking any action, while admitting that he had made no representation to any of them. It observed, “An authority that has never been told of a grievance cannot be said to have ignored it.”

It added that the petitioner could have complained to the Commissioner of Food Safety or the Central Consumer Protection Authority, but chose to come directly to the Court.

Holding that the writ petition was premature and lacked merit, the Court dismissed it without costs.

Cause Title: D. Rakesh v. Union of India & Ors. [W.P. No. 45614 of 2026]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Santhosh Paul for Advocate Arul Gnanaprakash.

Respondents: State Government Pleader M. Guruprasad and Senior Panel Counsel V. Chandrasekaran.

Click here to read/download the Order

Tags: