MHC refuses to entertain PIL against surrogate advertisement, says speculation can’t be basis for plea

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court dismissed a PIL alleging that ‘Vimal Elaichi’ advertisements were intended to indirectly promote Vimal Pan Masala, observing that social media information and unverified news reports cannot form the basis for initiating public interest litigation.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan observed that PILs were an extraordinary remedy intended to assist those unable to approach the court themselves and must be supported by credible material rather than guesswork or speculation.

D Rakesh of Madurai filed the petition seeking directions to the Centre and Tamil Nadu government to take action against PB Agro LLP over its advertisements for ‘Vimal Elaichi’, alleging that they were a means of indirectly promoting Vimal Pan Masala.

The company manufactures both pan masala and Kesar Elaichi under the common brand name, Vimal, said the petitioner, alleging that its extensive advertising campaign featuring three film actors was intended to indirectly promote pan masala, violating various food safety, consumer protection, and tobacco control laws.

Citing action taken by the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration against the three actors in August, he alleged that authorities in Tamil Nadu failed to take action against the company and sought a direction for an inquiry and action against the firm, and a ban on the advertisements.

The court pointed out that the petition was largely based on the petitioner's assumptions and information gathered through social media. It noted that the newspaper and web reports relied upon by him concerned only show-cause notices issued in Maharashtra, which did not constitute final findings. Further, the notices were based on a prohibition order specific to Maharashtra and could not form the basis for directing Tamil Nadu authorities to initiate action.

Further, the court pointed out that the petitioner had not submitted any representation to the authorities concerned before approaching it, though he could have lodged a complaint with the Commissioner of Food Safety or the Central Consumer Protection Authority.

The court also noted that the petitioner had admitted that elaichi was a recognised food product registered with the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) and that no law prohibited its advertisement. It held that the allegation of surrogate advertising was a question of fact that required concrete supporting material, which the petitioner had failed to produce.

Holding that the PIL was premature and lacked merit, the court dismissed the petition.