Now Reading: Maharashtra FDA warns SRK, Ajay Devgn of Rs 10 lakh fine over Vimal ad
-
01
Maharashtra FDA warns SRK, Ajay Devgn of Rs 10 lakh fine over Vimal ad
Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration commissioner Tukaram Mundhe has warned that Bollywood actors Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff could face a fine of up to Rs 10 lakh if…
Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration commissioner Tukaram Mundhe has warned that Bollywood actors Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff could face a fine of up to Rs 10 lakh if their responses to show-cause notices over a Vimal Elaichi advertisement are unsatisfactory. The notices, issued on August 14, allege that the ad amounts to surrogate or indirect promotion of a pan masala brand, which is prohibited under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
Mundhe told ANI that the FDA had been examining the matter and that action, even if delayed, was necessary. "This invites a fine up to Rs 10 lakh in the first stage," he said, adding that further action could be taken under clauses on prohibited items if the replies are not satisfactory. The actors have 15 days to respond. The FDA has also cited a state government order banning the manufacture and sale of such products for one year from July 13, 2026.
The crackdown is part of a wider enforcement drive by the FDA under Mundhe. Chief minister Devendra Fadnavis has backed the drive, and deputy chief minister Eknath Shinde has directed the FDA to consider action under MCOCA against organised food adulteration. Separately, actor Mukesh Khanna has publicly backed the notices and urged the three stars to apologise.
Indian Opinion Analysis
Coverage is uniform in reporting the FDA warning but differs in framing. Times of India (sources 3 and 4) leads with Mundhe's threat of a fine and notes the ban order, sticking to straight reportage. Hindustan Times also leads with the fine and includes Mundhe's "better late than never" defence. Free Press Journal adds political backing from Fadnavis and Shinde, and flags MCOCA as a potential tool against food adulteration, giving the story a governance-action angle. Source 5 (ToI) is a separate piece quoting Mukesh Khanna's criticism of the actors. No source questions the FDA's case or notes any defence from the actors. The measured takeaway: the FDA is using high-profile enforcement to signal seriousness, but the actors' legal risk depends on their responses and whether the ad is legally proven to be surrogate promotion.
Coverage: 5 sources, 1 pro-government, 3 neutral, 1 sensationalist
Sources (5): hindustantimes.com (neutral report), freepressjournal.in (pro government), timesofindia.indiatimes.com (neutral report), timesofindia.indiatimes.com (2) (neutral report), timesofindia.indiatimes.com (3) (sensationalist)
This story was synthesised by AI from the 5 sources linked above.
Updated: this story now draws on 5 sources.
