The Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued show-cause notices to Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff on August 11, 2026, over their Vimal Elaichi advertisement, giving the actors 15 days to explain why the campaign should not be treated as surrogate promotion for Vimal Pan Masala.
FDA chief Tukaram Mundhe’s office has also directed them to pull the advertisement from their social media accounts and disclose their endorsement contracts and due diligence records.
On paper, this is a regulatory dispute over one advertisement. But the reaction to it has been instant, sprawling and much bigger than the advertisement itself. It has tapped into a growing frustration with Bollywood’s biggest stars and the assumption that fame, wealth and a carefully constructed public image automatically make them worthy of trust.
What Is Surrogate Advertising?
The FDA’s objection isn’t really about cardamom. Surrogate advertising is when a brand uses a legal product to keep a banned or restricted product visible through the same name, branding, packaging or celebrity association, while technically advertising something else.
Vimal is primarily known as a pan masala brand. When “Vimal Elaichi” appears with the same branding and the same celebrity faces, the FDA’s argument is that the campaign keeps the Vimal name, and by extension its association with pan masala, in front of consumers even though the advertisement is technically selling a mouth freshener.
It is a tactic regulators have flagged for years in other sectors too, including liquor brands using products such as soda water or music CDs to maintain visibility for the parent brand.
A Pattern, Not An Incident
This is not the first time the Vimal campaign has landed its celebrity endorsers in trouble.
In 2022, Akshay Kumar publicly apologised after backlash over the same Vimal Elaichi advertisement. “I am sorry. I would like to apologise to you, all my fans and well-wishers.”
Kumar subsequently stepped away from the brand and said he would donate his endorsement fee to charity. That apology resurfaced widely after the latest FDA notice, making the current controversy look less like an isolated incident and more like a recurring problem.
Ajay Devgn faced similar backlash that year but did not apologise. His defence over tobacco-related advertising was blunt: “It is a personal choice.”
He argued that if something was genuinely harmful, “it should not be sold” at all, while continuing to defend his association with the brand.
The current FDA notice effectively swaps in Tiger Shroff for Kumar. The brand remains the same. The controversy remains familiar. And the question of how much responsibility celebrities carry for the products they endorse has returned once again.
Selling Struggle, Then Selling Out
The Vimal controversy also taps into a larger contradiction in Bollywood’s celebrity culture.
Its biggest stars regularly play characters who fight corrupt systems, survive real tragedy, stand up for ordinary people or embody causes larger than themselves. It is a reliable formula of inspiration, awards and box office, in that order.
The same stars whose on-screen identities are built around discipline, conviction and social responsibility can then appear in campaigns that seem to contradict those very values.
For audiences, the issue is no longer simply whether an actor has the legal right to sign an endorsement deal. It is whether their public image still means anything when the price is right.
John Abraham articulated that contradiction directly in 2024 on The Ranveer Show. “People talk about fitness, and the same people endorse paan-masala.”
“On one hand, I talk about fitness, and on the other hand, I can’t go about selling pan masala. I will not sell death.”
He also explained the responsibility he associates with being a public figure: “If I live my life with honesty, and if I practice what I preach, then I am a role model. But if I am presenting a fake version of myself in public and behaving like a different person behind their back, they will spot it.”
The Pan Masala Pattern
A widely upvoted r/indiasocial post titled “List of Celebs that endorse Pan Masala directly or through surrogate advertising” had already mapped out celebrity associations with pan masala brands.
The list included Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn, Akshay Kumar, Hrithik Roshan, Saif Ali Khan and Tiger Shroff, along with cricketers such as Sunil Gavaskar and Virender Sehwag.
The post’s central argument was simple: “When a big name is attached to a brand or a product, it legitimises it.”
One user wrote, “It’s like when you see all these alcohol brands advertising Glasses or music… but in reality they just want to mention the brand name.”
Another user pointed to the familiar Kingfisher example, “Kingfisher selling water via ads instead of beer (since alcohol advertising is banned in India).”
When Gen Z Called Bollywood Out
The Vimal controversy arrived at a time when Bollywood was already facing a much bigger question about celebrity credibility.
During the CJP-led student protests, some of India’s biggest stars were criticised for staying silent as young people took to the streets over alleged examination irregularities.
Protesters questioned why celebrities who routinely used their platforms for films, brands and commercial campaigns were reluctant to use that same reach when students were demanding accountability.
The Guardian reported that protesters were particularly scathing about celebrities who had spoken out on global issues but remained silent on the grievances of young people at home.
But some celebrities did show up.
Imran Khan joined the students in Mumbai, while Shabana Azmi and Prakash Raj joined protesters in Delhi. Sonakshi Sinha and Dia Mirza also spoke in support of the movement.
Azmi did not merely post about the protests. She joined the march herself. When reporters asked about the absence of other Bollywood celebrities, she pushed back, “You are only worried about the fact that Bollywood celebrities are not present at the march.”
View this post on Instagram
Imran Khan was similarly direct about the idea that actors should remain “apolitical.” Speaking after joining the protest, he said, “True art is going to have an individual artist point of view embedded within it.”
The contrast with the industry’s biggest names quickly became the focus.
Shah Rukh Khan, Aamir Khan and Salman Khan were among the stars whose silence attracted criticism. Virat Kohli and Anushka Sharma were also trolled for allegedly lacking a “spine.”
The anger was not simply about wanting celebrities to take a particular political position. For young protesters, it was about reciprocity. “We are the ones who made them famous and wealthy by turning up and paying for their films and matches,” 24-year-old protester Vijay Rai told The Guardian. “Now when it’s our turn for a little help, we get nothing.”
The backlash became particularly sharp when some of the biggest stars finally spoke, but their statements were seen by critics as too cautious.
Salman Khan urged students to return home and not make their “parents worried for them”, while Anupam Kher acknowledged the students’ “restlessness and anger” but warned about “political opportunists” and people with their “own agenda.”
The timing became part of the criticism too. Critics argued that some of Bollywood’s responses came only after the protests had become impossible to ignore, raising questions about whether celebrities were speaking out because they believed in the cause or because remaining silent had become reputationally risky.
Naseeruddin Shah also publicly criticised Bollywood’s silence, comparing the industry to a “dog with a bone” that cannot bark. His remarks added another voice from within Bollywood to the criticism of colleagues who had chosen not to speak.
The reaction was no longer just a demand for a statement. It became a referendum on celebrity credibility and on whether stars were willing to risk anything for the principles they publicly represented.
That is what makes the CJP backlash relevant to Vimal.
The same audience that questioned why celebrities could remain silent when students were demanding accountability can also question why stars who sell images of fitness, discipline and social responsibility would lend their faces to pan masala.
In both cases, the question is ultimately the same. How much is the celebrity image worth when the choices become uncomfortable?
It’s Bigger Than Pan Masala
A separate r/TheBetterIndia post titled “hypocrisy behind Celebs promoting ultra-processed foods… while still maintaining a healthy lifestyle by not actually consuming them behind the scenes” widened the discussion to celebrity endorsements across the food and beverage industry.
The post listed major Bollywood and cricket stars alongside the brands they had endorsed, including Shah Rukh Khan, Salman Khan, Aamir Khan, Amitabh Bachchan, Hrithik Roshan, Ranveer Singh and Ranbir Kapoor, as well as several cricketers and social media creators.
Virat Kohli’s entry stood out for the opposite reason: “Pepsi (quit the endorsement in 2017 citing health reasons).”
One user wrote, “People buy things because their favourite celebs endorses it, but these celebs just do it for money.”
Another user pushed back against the entire premise, “Celebrities have no obligation to anything or anyone.”
The disagreement matters because it exposes the central question of celebrity advertising. Is an endorsement simply a commercial transaction, or does a celebrity’s influence create a responsibility that goes beyond the contract?
Read More: High Time, Cockroach Gen-Z Cancels Bollywood; They Never Speak For The Country, Only Profit Off It
Bollywood’s Silence Problem
That question also explains why the anger surrounding the Vimal advertisement has travelled beyond pan masala.
On Reddit, users have repeatedly criticised celebrities for using their platforms when the subject is safe, profitable or glamorous while remaining silent when speaking up might carry a personal or professional cost.
One widely discussed post on subreddit r/IndianTeenagers was titled “Most spineless celebrities in the world.” A 2019 photograph of several Bollywood A-listers, including Ranveer Singh, Ranbir Kapoor, Alia Bhatt, Varun Dhawan and Karan Johar, posing with the Prime Minister resurfaced on the Reddit thread, where users reinterpreted the photograph years after it was originally shared.
One user wrote, “If they can’t use their platform for important issues, what’s the point? Jai Hind to the youth.”
Another wrote, “movies me deshbhkati ka gyaan saare baante h reality me they dont wanna do shit! cowards.”
The discussion then moved from celebrity silence to the risks ordinary people face. “Why are we the common people are expected to take risk… while they would sit in there mansions.”
Another user responded, “common people will not be identified and face consequences while celebrities may find themself losing work.”
The Contradictions Audiences Remember
In a 2006 CNN-IBN interview, Shah Rukh Khan was questioned by Karan Thapar about endorsing soft drinks amid concerns over their health impact. Khan responded, “If it’s poisoning our people, do not let it be made in India.”
He went on to say, “Don’t stop my revenue. I’m an actor. I’m supposed to do a job and get revenue from it. And very clearly, I mean, if you think something is wrong, stop it.”
Years later, the clip was brought into a Reddit discussion on r/BollyBlindsNGossip about celebrity accountability.
One user wrote, “It’s whataboutery. SRK as celeb is responsible for the choices he makes…Accountability is a thing which everyone should have.”
The discussion also revisited Khan’s long-running association with fairness cream advertising, with one commenter writing, “how he promoted fairness creams for decades echoing the deep rooted racist thinking… dark skin= ugly.”
Another wrote, “same guy promoted fair & handsome ads while his entire family is unconventionally attractive with dark skin tone.”
Whether or not every comparison is equally fair, the fact that audiences remember old endorsements matters. Celebrity credibility is cumulative. So is celebrity hypocrisy, when audiences perceive it.
The Live Reaction To The FDA Notice
When the FDA notice broke on August 11, 2026, the response on social media was immediate.
Journalist Vizhpuneet wrote on X/Twitter, “Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgan and Tiger Shroff are shamelessly promoting toxic pan masala through fake elaichi ads, ignoring public health completely just for huge money.”
Journalist Nidhie Sharma added industry context, “Most of these brands fund the Bollywood ecosystem in multiple ways.” She also described the campaign as surrogate advertising for pan masala, pointing to similar strategies used by liquor brands.
Politician Shaina Chudasama addressed the issue in a video statement, arguing, “Celebrities are role models, and with influence comes responsibility.”
Content creator Dhruv Rathee questioned Shah Rukh Khan’s participation in the campaign given his financial position: “Do you really need another Rs 100 or Rs 200 crore when you already have so much?”
The reaction was divided. Some agreed that wealthy celebrities should not need to promote products they consider harmful. Others argued that an endorsement is a professional contract and that consumers remain responsible for their own choices.
What Gen Z Actually Wants Instead
A 2025 ET-Snapchat Gen Z Index, conducted with Kantar, found that 80% of Indian Gen Z respondents trusted influencers who share relatable stories, compared with 67% who trusted celebrity endorsements.
The finding does not necessarily mean young audiences have stopped caring about celebrities. It suggests that celebrity status alone is becoming less persuasive.
Public health experts have made a version of this argument for years, in more clinical language. Cardiologist Dr K. Srinath Reddy wrote in a widely shared op-ed, “Endorsements should not endanger health.”
Public health advocate Dr Arun Gupta illustrated the real-world impact of celebrity influence by quoting a child’s reaction to an Amitabh Bachchan biscuit advertisement: “If he says that this biscuit is an alternative to breakfast, I will have three of them before school.”
The stakes underneath the memes are therefore not limited to brand embarrassment. They involve what children eat, what consumers perceive as safe and which public figures are trusted enough to influence those choices.
The Uncomfortable Question Underneath The Notice
As of the latest reporting, none of the three actors has issued a public response, and the 15-day window remains open.
Legally, the matter still has to play out. The actors have an opportunity to respond to the FDA’s allegations, and the notice itself is not a final finding of wrongdoing.
Culturally, however, the argument began long before this notice. The Vimal controversy has simply brought those arguments together in one place.
Bollywood spent decades teaching audiences to treat its biggest stars as symbols of courage, sacrifice and aspiration. The emerging challenge is not necessarily that audiences have stopped admiring them.
It is that they are increasingly unwilling to assume that fame equals character. And once that assumption disappears, every endorsement becomes a question not just of what a celebrity is paid to promote, but of what their credibility is worth.
Image Credits: Google Images
Sources: Hindustan Times, The New Indian Express, The Times of India
Find the blogger: @diptisadh
This post is tagged under: bollywood, Vimal Elaichi ad, Vimal Elaichi controversy, Gen Z, bollywood celebrities, celebrity endorsements, celebrity hypocrisy, Gen Z India, pan masala advertisements, Tukaram Mundhe, Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn, Tiger Shroff, Akshay Kumar, Gen Z and bollywood, celebrity accountability, bollywood idols, celebrity influence, authenticity, surrogate advertising, bollywood hypocrisy
Disclaimer: We do not own any rights or copyrights to the images used; these images have been sourced from Google. If you require credits or wish to request removal, please contact us via email.
Other Recommendations:
Bollywood Profits From Trans Culture But Remains Silent On Regressive Bill
