Madras High Court Dismisses PIL Against Vimal Elaichi Ads Over Alleged Surrogate Promotion Of Pan Masala

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan held that the petitioner's case rested on speculations and internet rumours and the court's jurisdiction could not be set in motion in the absence of credible material.

“Public interest litigation is an extraordinary legal remedy designed to assist those unable to approach the court themselves. Consequently, it demands rigorous and credible material rather than mere guesswork. This jurisdiction cannot be set in motion based on speculation, internet rumors, or unverified news reports lacking proper foundational research,” the court said.

The petitioner, D Rakesh from Madurai, had submitted that PB Agro LLP manufactured both Pan Masala and Kesar Elaichi (cardamom with saffron). He submitted that both items were food products and registered with the FSSAI.

The petitioner argued that PB Agro had been advertising Vimal Elaichi on television, in print, on social media and on hoardings using well-known actors. He argued that it was hard to believe that the company would spend too much to sell cardamom. The petitioner thus alleged that the Elaichi ad was a surrogate advertisement to promote pan masala and was in violation 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 also pointed to the notice issued by the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration, which has linked Vimal Elaichi with Vimal Pan Masala. He argued that though the Commissioner of Food Safety in Tamil Nadu has issued an order against tobacco and nicotine-based chewable products, it had not taken any action against the manufacturing company. Thus, the petitioner had sought inquiry and action against the company and a direction to stop the advertisement.

The court noted that most of the arguments made by the petitioner are on the ground that he was “advised” or had “learnt through social media” about the same. The court noted that the argument of the petitioner rests on suspicion. The court noted that Elaichi was a recognised food product and no law barred its advertisement.

The court also noted that even as per the petitioner, no gutka or tobacco product was being sold by the manufacturing company, but had said that such a possibility could not be ruled out. The court held that an enquiry could not be ordered on the chance that something may turn up.

With respect to the allegation that the advertisement was a surrogate one, the court held that it was a question of fact, which had to be looked into by the competent authorities. The court held that it could not declare the advertisement as surrogate based on an affidavit filed by the petitioner, without any concrete substantiating material.

The court also noted that one of the actors, to whom notice had been issued in Maharashtra, had approached the court challenging the same and thus, the matter had not attained finality. The court also added that the action taken by another state, which was in the preliminary stage, was no basis for authorities in Tamil Nadu to proceed against anyone.

"An action taken by one State, on its own order and at a preliminary stage, gives us no basis to direct the authorities in Tamil Nadu to proceed against anyone," the court said.

The court also noted that the petitioner had not made any representation to the authorities, and thus the authorities had no legal duty to perform. The court added that the petitioner should have complained to the Commissioner of Food Safety or the Central Consumer Protection Authority but had instead come to the court.

“A mandamus needs a legal duty and a failure to perform it. The petitioner says the respondents "are not taking any action". Yet, he admits in his affidavit that he made no representation to any of them. An authority that has never been told of a grievance cannot be said to have ignored it. The petitioner could have complained to the Commissioner of Food Safety or to the Central Consumer Protection Authority, however, he chose to come directly to this Court,” the court said.

Thus, noting that the plea was premature and lacked materials, the court dismissed the plea.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Santhosh Paul, Senior Counsel for Mr. Arul Gnanaprakash

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. M. Guruprasad, State Government Pleader, Mr. V. Chandrasekaran Senior Panel Counsel