Ajay Devgn Appeals to Bombay High Court Against FDA Notice
Ajay Devgn seeks to annul a notice from Maharashtra FDA regarding his Vimal Elaichi advertisements.
Devgn challenges FDA's notice claiming it targets him unfairly as an actor.
The Bombay High Court hearing is scheduled for November 4.
FDA's investigation found violations related to advertisements for Vimal Pan Masala.
Bollywood actor Ajay Devgn has filed a petition in the Bombay High Court to contest a show-cause notice issued by the Maharashtra Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) concerning his involvement in advertisements for Vimal Elaichi. The court is set to hear the case on November 4, with a division bench led by Chief Justice Mahesh C Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna presiding over the matter.
The FDA's notice alleges that the advertisements for Vimal Elaichi indirectly promote Vimal Pan Masala, a product that is prohibited in Maharashtra. This notice is part of a broader scrutiny that also includes other prominent actors like Shah Rukh Khan and Tiger Shroff, who have received similar notifications regarding their promotional activities.
In his legal challenge, Devgn questions the legitimacy of the regulations that prompted the FDA's actions. He argues that the responsibility for the advertisement lies with the manufacturer, not the actors who appear in them. Devgn has characterized the FDA's actions as arbitrary, emphasizing that accountability should rest with the company behind the product rather than individual endorsers.
This legal battle also involves PB Agro, the manufacturer of Vimal products, which previously sought to have the notices against Devgn and others annulled in the Delhi High Court. However, that court declined to hear the case, citing a lack of jurisdiction, as the issues pertain to actions taken by Maharashtra authorities. Following this, Devgn has turned to the Bombay High Court for relief.
The FDA's investigation into the advertisements featuring Devgn, Khan, and Shroff has concluded, with Commissioner Tukaram Mundhe stating that violations of state regulations were identified. The actors had requested additional time to respond before the investigation was finalized. The case is now set to be reviewed by the Joint Commissioner, who will serve as the adjudicating authority, with a decision expected soon.

