The Health Ministry’s latest call to ban all advertisements related to tobacco and alcohol, including surrogate promotions, during the Indian Premier League (IPL) has sparked outrage among stakeholders in the liquor and advertising industries. Experts argue that the move is not only legally questionable but also economically damaging, demonstrating a lack of regulatory foresight.
At the heart of the controversy is the practice of surrogate advertising – where companies promote products that are legal but are perceived as stand-ins for banned goods. While India already has strict regulations on direct liquor and tobacco advertising, brand extensions, such as water, soda, and music CDs under the same brand name, have been legally permitted if they meet specific conditions.
However, the Health Ministry’s latest diktat paints all forms of such marketing with the same brush, failing to distinguish between genuine brand extensions and misleading and surrogate advertisements. This, according to legal experts, amounts to an excessive and arbitrary exercise of authority.
In a letter dated March 5, addressed to IPL chairman Arun Singh Dhumal and the BCCI, Director General of Health Services Atul Goel also called for banning the sale of tobacco and alcohol products at all IPL – affiliated events and sports venues. The letter further advised sports authorities to discourage players, commentators, and other stakeholders from endorsing products linked to tobacco and alcohol, either directly or indirectly.
“Current laws already prohibit surrogate advertising of liquor and tobacco products. The Health Ministry’s letter to the cricket board is essentially an advisory or direction and not an Order under any specific law,” explains Darshan Bora, Partner at Economic Laws Practice. “The issue here is that the Ministry is exceeding its mandate by pre-emptively banning something that has a legal framework to exist.”
The Ministry’s order has been met with particular scorn for its indiscriminate targeting of brand extensions, which are legitimate business ventures in their own right.
A top executive from a liquor firm argues, “We also have brand extensions of non-alcoholic products which meet required mandate including sale of unrestricted product or service which is registered with the right authorities and its brand promotion won’t be considered surrogate advertising.”
Experts also indicate that the Department of Consumer Affairs (DoCA) held an internal discussion on the surrogate and brand extension issue and decided not to have provisions including a blanket ban on brand extension or surrogate ads but will come out with new guidelines. The draft guidelines are yet to be released for consultation process.
“This Departmental Order (DO) appears to be one of regulatory overreach, ignoring the complex realities of modern brand strategy,” says Siddharth Chandrashekhar, Advocate & Counsel at Bombay High Court. “Rather than a pragmatic review and targeted enforcement of misleading advertisements, what we have here is an indiscriminate clampdown that risks undermining both public health objectives as well as legitimate commercial activity. This will only effectively punish success and stifle economic innovation.”
The implications of this move extend beyond legality and economic viability. The IPL, one of the most expensive sporting leagues in the world, has heavily relied on sponsorship revenue. According to The India Alcohol Market Report 2025, the India alcohol market is estimated to be valued at USD 60.11 Bn in 2025 and is expected to reach USD 101.10 Bn by 2032, exhibiting a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 7.7% from 2025 to 2032.
“Indicative estimates suggest that surrogate advertising by alcohol and tobacco brands contributes significantly to IPL’s sponsorship revenue, with such brands spending anywhere between INR 300-500 crore per season on partnerships and in-stadium promotions,” states Vineet Recriwal, COO of Jajabor Brand Consultancy. “The financial reliance on these categories has grown, given the limited sponsorship options in certain sectors. However, the long-term brand impact of aligning with responsible advertising could outweigh short-term revenue gains.”
Yet, the Ministry’s action ignores this economic reality, raising concerns that its approach is more about moral policing than effective governance.
“The legal landscape of surrogate advertising in India is convoluted, primarily because existing laws focus on direct advertising bans but fail to comprehensively address brand extensions,” notes Sonam Chandwani, Managing Partner at KS Legal & Associates. “The ASCI (Advertising Standards Council of India) guidelines attempt to restrict misleading surrogate ads, but enforcement remains weak due to subjective interpretation.”
This subjectivity in interpretation is precisely what allows the Ministry to flex its regulatory muscles without clear legal backing. By failing to differentiate between misleading surrogate advertising and legitimate brand extensions, the government risks alienating businesses that have operated within the confines of the law.
Moreover, experts argue that rather than issuing blanket bans, a more effective approach would be to strengthen existing oversight mechanisms. This would ensure that deceptive advertising is curbed while legitimate brand extensions can continue to operate, thus maintaining a balance between public health concerns and economic growth.