The Madras High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking action against P.B. Agro LLP over its advertisements for Vimal Elaichi, which the petitioner alleged were indirectly promoting Vimal Pan Masala. The Division Bench held that allegations of surrogate advertising cannot be established through suspicion, media reports or unverified information.
Background
The petition was filed by D. Rakesh under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking directions to the Union Government, Tamil Nadu authorities and food safety regulators to investigate the company's advertising campaign.
The petitioner argued that Vimal Elaichi and Vimal Pan Masala were marketed under the same brand name and that extensive advertising featuring film actors could indirectly promote pan masala. He also referred to show-cause notices reportedly issued to three actors by Maharashtra authorities in August 2026.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan observed that Public Interest Litigation requires credible supporting material rather than speculation.
The Court stated:
"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 Bench noted that the Maharashtra notices were only preliminary show-cause notices, not final findings. Moreover, the petitioner had admitted that Elaichi was a recognised food product registered with FSSAI and that he had found no tobacco or gutka product being sold by the company under the Vimal brand.
On the question of surrogate advertising, the Court observed:
"The allegation that the advertisement is surrogate is a question of fact. The answer depends 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."
The Bench further pointed out that the petitioner had not submitted any representation to the concerned authorities before approaching the Court.
Holding that the petition was premature and lacked merit, the Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition.
The Court made no order as to costs and closed the connected miscellaneous application.
