Surrogate Ads Galore in Puja Pandals as Companies Play with the Law
Guwahati’s Durga Puja pandals are meant to celebrate the triumph of good over evil. Yet a walk through several of the city’s festive venues reveals an uncomfortable contradiction: pan masala advertisements have secured prime visibility, turning spaces meant for community worship into platforms for the indirect promotion of tobacco-associated brands. Despite directions from the Kamrup (Metro) district administration to make Puja pandals tobacco-free zones, familiar branding linked to pan masala and tobacco continues to attract attention. This raises questions about corporate accountability, regulatory enforcement and whether organisers are placing public health above sponsorship money.
ALSO READ: Guwahati Retailers Roll Out Festive Offers on Electronics, Appliances and Vehicles
The advertisements exploit the distinction between a product that can legally be advertised and another whose promotion is prohibited. Rather than openly promoting gutkha or another tobacco-containing product, companies advertise elaichi, or cardamom-based products, carrying brand identities consumers may already associate with pan masala and tobacco. The advertised product may be legally distinct, but familiar branding, colours, slogans and celebrity endorsements can make that distinction difficult for ordinary consumers to recognise.
As thousands of devotees, including children and teenagers, visit Puja pandals, these brands receive extensive exposure in crowded public spaces. The controversy is not merely about a banner or sponsorship agreement; it is about whether companies can maintain the visibility of tobacco-associated brands by advertising other products under the same or similar branding.
A senior official associated with the National Tobacco Control Programme, speaking to G Plus on condition of anonymity, said, “The Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 bans advertisements of tobacco products, and the pan masala advertised by companies are not tobacco.”
The official, however, argued that the distinction between the advertised product and a company’s wider brand portfolio should not obscure the public-health implications.
“Companies like Vimal and Shikhar sell pan masala in a separate packet and tobacco in a separate packet. They do not even use their brand name in the packet in which they sell tobacco,” the official said, describing what the programme sees as an attempt to maintain brand recognition while avoiding direct promotion of tobacco.
The concern is that consumers may recognise a brand through its elaichi or pan masala advertisements and associate it with other products sold under the same identity. Repeated exposure can make a brand familiar even to people who do not buy the advertised product. That is the central controversy surrounding surrogate advertising: the product advertised may be lawful, while the marketing serves a wider promotional purpose.
The legal framework is more specific than a blanket ban on every advertisement for products made by tobacco companies. Section 5 of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act (COTPA) prohibits direct and indirect advertising of cigarettes and other tobacco products, including their promotion and sponsorship. The COTPA Rules, 2004, as amended, provide the framework for addressing indirect advertising and the promotion of tobacco products through other goods, services and events.
The legality of an advertisement cannot therefore be determined simply by looking at the product name printed on a banner. Authorities must examine its content, branding, presentation and context to establish whether it amounts to prohibited indirect tobacco promotion. At the same time, an advertisement for a genuinely separate and lawful product is not automatically illegal merely because its manufacturer also sells tobacco. The assessment must be based on the applicable provisions and evidence in each case.
This distinction is important, but it should not become an excuse for regulatory inaction. If a lawful product is being used to reinforce the identity of a tobacco product, regulators must investigate the substance of the promotion instead of accepting the advertiser’s description as the final word.
Section 22 of COTPA provides penalties for contravening Section 5. A first conviction may attract imprisonment of up to two years, a fine of up to Rs1,000, or both. For a subsequent conviction, imprisonment can extend to five years and the fine to Rs 5,000. Liability depends on the facts, the nature of the violation and the role of those involved. These penalties should not be presented as automatic fines for every pan masala banner; a violation must first be established under the relevant law.
The law also distinguishes between tobacco-containing products and pan masala without tobacco. Regulation 2.3.4 of the Food Safety and Standards (Prohibition and Restrictions on Sales) Regulations, 2011, prohibits tobacco and nicotine as ingredients in food products. This underlies the prohibition on gutkhacontaining tobacco or nicotine, but does not by itself establish that every product marketed as pan masala is illegal. Ingredients, composition and applicable food-safety requirements must be examined separately.
The National Tobacco Control Programme has asked district administrations to ensure that Puja committees do not display direct or indirect tobacco advertisements, the senior official said. A source in the Kamrup (Metro) administration also indicated that a communication would be issued to Puja pandals in Guwahati.
The question is whether another letter will make a difference when the commercial incentives remain firmly in place. Unless the administration clearly defines the requirements of its tobacco-free-zone direction, identifies who is responsible for checking compliance and acts against violations where the law permits, the directive risks becoming another seasonal reminder rather than an effective public-health measure.
For companies, the arrangement offers an attractive bargain: their brands remain visible at crowded public events while the advertised product is presented as something other than tobacco. For organisers, sponsorship helps pay for elaborate decorations, lighting, cultural programmes and other expenses. For the public, however, the distinction between a legitimate product advertisement and an attempt to circumvent tobacco restrictions is not always obvious.
A Puja committee member on AK Azad Road told G Plus that organising DurgaPuja has become increasingly expensive and sponsorship is essential to meeting the costs.
“It is very difficult to meet the expenses of organising Puja. We depend on sponsorship from various agencies, and pan masala advertisements are easy to get. The companies are always willing to sponsor some amount, but there is a condition that their advertisements will be displayed,” the committee member said.
The explanation highlights the financial pressures facing organisers, but also raises a question of responsibility. Community festivals need resources, yet financial difficulty does not automatically justify accepting every commercial arrangement. If a sponsor’s branding conflicts with a public-health directive, committees must decide whether the immediate financial benefit is worth the wider consequences.
The issue becomes particularly visible when celebrity endorsements and familiar slogans dominate the visual landscape. Large advertisements featuring Ajay Devgn and Shah Rukh Khan promoting Vimal Elaichi have been seen at Puja venues. The slogan “Bolo zuban kesari” has acquired wide recognition, showing how a brand can become familiar well beyond the audience that buys the advertised product.
The advertised product may be elaichi rather than gutkha, but the marketing strategy relies on brand recognition. Consumers who encounter the same name, visual identity and promotional style across different products may associate them with one another, even when their ingredients and legal classifications differ.
That is why surrogate advertising is difficult for regulators. Pointing out that a packet contains cardamom rather than tobacco does not settle the legal question. Equally, the fact that a brand also sells a prohibited product does not automatically make every advertisement under that brand unlawful. The advertisement’s content, the relationship between the products, the branding and the applicable legal provisions all matter.
The administration must also distinguish between its tobacco-free-zone direction and the statutory prohibition on tobacco advertising. The precise wording and scope of the district order matter. Such a direction may impose additional obligations on participating committees, but the consequences of a violation depend on the order’s terms and the legal authority under which it was issued.
The National Tobacco Control Programme’s guidance identifies restrictions on tobacco advertising, sales to minors and sales within 100 yards of educational institutions as important elements of tobacco control. These provisions have distinct applications: restrictions on sales near educational institutions do not automatically make a pan masala advertisement at a Puja pandal illegal, but they reflect the broader objective of reducing tobacco exposure and protecting young people.
For Guwahati’s Puja organisers, the implication is straightforward: an advertisement cannot be judged solely by the product category claimed by the sponsor. Organisers and the administration must consider whether the branding amounts to indirect tobacco promotion and whether its display violates an applicable order or statutory restriction.
The practice is not confined to Guwahati. An event manager working in Assam recalled an incident during Bihu when a surrogate advertisement for a liquor brand triggered a major dispute in Barpeta.
“The incident was only in one pandal. But in Guwahati, everywhere there are surrogate tobacco advertisements, and there is no issue,” the event manager said.
The comparison highlights a wider inconsistency in the treatment of commercial sponsorship at public festivals. If organisers and authorities recognise that surrogate advertising can become controversial in one setting, similar concerns should not be ignored elsewhere simply because the branding is familiar or the sponsorship more lucrative.
The difference in approach between urban and rural Assam is also striking. According to information shared with G Plus, Puja committees in areas such as Baksa, Chirang and South Salmara often seek advertisements carrying public-service announcements, while pan masala branding is prominent at many Guwahati venues. This does not mean every rural committee follows the same practice, but it raises a question about whether the state’s largest city is setting the right example.
Guwahati attracts large crowds during Durga Puja, with families moving between pandals, food stalls, shopping areas and cultural events. Advertisements at prominent venues can reach people who have no intention of purchasing the advertised product. Children may recognise a celebrity, remember a slogan or become familiar with a brand long before they understand the health risks associated with tobacco consumption.
The concern is not that everyone who sees an advertisement will begin consuming tobacco. Rather, repeated exposure can normalise a brand and strengthen its presence in everyday life, even when direct tobacco advertising is restricted. The continued visibility of tobacco-associated branding at major public events therefore deserves closer scrutiny.
Ruchira Neog, Executive Secretary of the Voluntary Health Association of Assam and a longstanding public-health activist, believes the problem will persist unless the law is amended and public awareness improves.
Neog said surrogate advertising would continue unless the law was amended, while stressing that public consciousness must also change and Puja committees should avoid accepting such advertisements at their pandals.
Her observation points to two challenges: whether existing laws and their enforcement are sufficient to address sophisticated brand-extension strategies, and whether festival organisers and the public are willing to reject sponsorship that may conflict with public-health objectives.
Amending the law may be one way to address perceived loopholes, but it is not the only immediate option. The existing framework already prohibits indirect tobacco advertising and addresses certain forms of brand promotion. Authorities must first establish whether advertisements at Guwahati’s Puja venues violate those provisions. If current rules are inadequate, the government should identify the gaps and pursue appropriate legal changes.
The financial argument deserves consideration. Durga Puja involves substantial expenditure on idols, pandal construction, lighting, sound systems, security, sanitation and cultural programmes. Sponsorship helps committees meet these costs without placing the entire burden on local residents. But the pressure to raise funds should encourage organisers to diversify their sources of support rather than accept every offer without scrutiny.
Local businesses, responsible corporate sponsors and community contributions could provide alternatives, although these require planning and may not immediately replace large sponsorships. Committees could also disclose sponsorship agreements and establish clear policies excluding advertisements that conflict with tobacco-control requirements.
The district administration, meanwhile, must ensure that compliance is not left to individual choice. A written directive should clarify whether direct and indirect tobacco advertising is prohibited at the venues, specify the legal basis and establish a clear process for reporting and removing suspect advertisements. Organisers should receive guidance before pandals are erected, not after sponsors have paid and banners have been installed.
The administration must distinguish between an independent advertisement for a lawful product and a promotional exercise that uses another product to reinforce the identity of a tobacco brand. That assessment should be evidence-based and consistent, without treating every shared brand name as conclusive proof of wrongdoing.
Celebrity endorsements also deserve scrutiny. Film stars may be promoting a product legally distinct from tobacco, but their popularity can give a brand enormous reach. Regulators must determine whether an advertisement promotes only the stated product or indirectly advertises tobacco. That decision must be based on the applicable law, not assumptions about the celebrity or company alone.
There is also a broader accountability question for the companies themselves. If their advertising strategies depend on consumers recognising a brand across related products, they cannot expect regulators and the public to ignore the implications. Companies should be prepared to demonstrate that their advertisements comply with the law and do not function as disguised tobacco promotions.
The public has a role to play, too. Devotees can question the presence of such advertising, while community organisations can make tobacco-free sponsorship a condition of participation. Public-awareness campaigns could explain the difference between pan masala, tobacco-containing gutkha and products advertised under related brands, helping consumers understand why the distinction matters.
But responsibility must not be shifted entirely to ordinary citizens. Tobacco-control legislation exists because public-health risks require collective action and enforceable standards. Authorities must ensure that the law does not remain effective only when violations are obvious and direct.
Guwahati’s Puja pandals now present a test of whether the administration’s tobacco-free directive means what it says. If the rules are clear and the advertisements comply with them, authorities should explain the distinction transparently. If the branding amounts to prohibited indirect promotion, it must be examined and dealt with under the law. Silence and selective enforcement will only deepen public scepticism.
The irony is difficult to ignore. Durga Puja celebrates the defeat of forces that threaten society, yet its public spaces risk becoming platforms for commercial practices that may undermine public-health safeguards. The issue is not whether festivals should accept sponsorship, or whether every advertisement featuring a pan masala brand is automatically illegal. It is whether the pursuit of sponsorship is weakening the spirit and enforcement of tobacco-control law.
Unless the administration moves beyond issuing directions, committees look beyond immediate financial benefits and regulators examine the branding strategies involved, the same controversy is likely to return every festive season. The banners may promote elaichi, but the larger question remains whether the law can distinguish legitimate advertising from an attempt to keep tobacco brands in the public eye.
For a city that takes pride in the scale and splendour of its Durga Puja celebrations, the test should be simple: commercial sponsorship must not take precedence over public health, and no advertiser should be allowed to turn a legal distinction into a convenient route around the law.
