The Allahabad High Court has lately issued notices to Bollywood actors Akshay Kumar, Shahrukh Khan, and Ajay Devgn in connection with their signatures for gutka companies. This move comes after a representation was made to the central government, arguing that action should be taken against actors and dignitaries who, despite entering high-profile awards, continue to promote gutka products.
The Central Government’s Response
During the court proceedings, the centre’s counsel informed the high court that the Supreme Court was formerly looking into the matter. The centre requested the redundancy of the solicitation, citing the ongoing proceedings at the Supreme Court. The bench, after hearing the cessions, listed the coming hail for May 9, 2024.
Before Directives to the Central Government
Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan had preliminarily directed the central government to address the supplicant’s representation, which stressed the contradiction of actors entering prestigious awards while championing gutka products. The representation was submitted on October 22, and the petitioner argued that, despite the submission, no action had been taken by the government.
Disdain solicitation and notices to actors.
In response to the disdainful solicitation, the high court issued a notice to the Cabinet Secretary of the central government. On Friday, Deputy Solicitor General SB Pandey informed the court that the Centre had issued show cause notices to Akshay Kumar, Shah Rukh Khan, and Ajay Devgn. This development indicates a legal escalation against the actors involved in promoting gutka products.
Amitabh Bachchan’s Legal Action
The court was also informed that Bollywood legend Amitabh Bachchan had taken legal action against a gutka company. Despite cancelling his contract with the company, the company continued to feature his announcement. Bachchan’s legal notice adds another subcategory to the contest, girding celebrity signatures for potentially dangerous products.
The legal notices issued to prominent Bollywood actors and the ongoing legal battle emphasise the added scrutiny on celebrities championing products that may pose health pitfalls. This case raises questions about the ethical responsibility of public figures and the implicit legal consequences they may face for their advertising choices. As the court proceedings progress, the outgrowth may set a precedent for the responsibility of celebrities to champion products with implicit health hazards.