NCDRC Criticizes Jaipur Consumer Forum Over Warrants Issued Against Salman Khan

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has expressed concerns regarding the actions of the Jaipur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in issuing bailable warrants against Bollywood actor Salman Khan. These warrants were related to allegations of misleading advertisements in connection with Rajshree Pan Masala, as detailed in the case Salman Salim Khan v. Yogendra Singh Badiyal & Ors.

In an order dated July 2, a bench comprising Justice A.P. Sahi and Member Bharatkumar Pandya pointed out that the Jaipur District Commission had not adequately assessed whether the complaint against Khan constituted a case of misleading advertisement. The NCDRC underscored the necessity for the district commission to first determine if the advertisement in question was indeed misleading before issuing warrants.

The NCDRC remarked, “The District Commission did not even make the minimum effort to explore the distinction of a misleading advertisement or shadow marketing and in effect arrived at an abrupt conclusion that the product was meant to promote and advertise some tobacco produce.” The bench highlighted the lack of a prima facie assessment of the product and noted that the order also lacked thoroughness.

Further, the NCDRC criticized the Jaipur commission for broadening the scope of the inquiry by focusing on the authenticity of Khan’s signatures instead of concentrating on the central allegations of the complaint. “The question that begs consideration is should the District Commission or a State Commission have focused on the real issue pertaining to the correctness or otherwise of the allegations in the complaint,” the commission observed.

The origins of this legal dispute trace back to a consumer complaint filed by advocate Yogendra Singh Badiyal. In 2025, Badiyal approached the Jaipur district consumer forum alleging that Rajshree Pan Masala’s advertisement, which featured Salman Khan, falsely promoted the product as containing saffron and cardamom, in violation of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003.

In response, Badiyal requested an interim order to halt the advertisement. Subsequently, on January 6, 2026, the district commission issued an ex parte interim order. However, Khan argued that this order was released without proper notification and filed an appeal through his legal team on January 15, 2026, under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Khan contended that the product was a silver-coated cardamom flavored with saffron, explicitly stating it contained “no tobacco” and “no nicotine.” He also argued that the case fell under the jurisdiction of the Central Consumer Protection Authority.

Faced with allegations of non-compliance, the district commission issued bailable warrants against Khan and initiated steps to verify his signatures. The situation escalated with the formation of a special task force for serving summons.

In response, Khan challenged these proceedings before the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which declined to intervene, prompting his appeal to the NCDRC. The NCDRC noted the advertisement’s claim of being free from tobacco or nicotine and criticized the district commission for not evaluating this aspect before granting interim relief.

Referring to Section 38(8) of the Consumer Protection Act, the NCDRC emphasized the importance of judicial discretion in granting interim relief, ensuring that such orders don’t amount to final relief, especially when passed ex parte. The NCDRC also questioned the necessity of the special task force and signature verification when Khan was already represented by counsel.

Given the stay on relevant orders by the Rajasthan High Court, the NCDRC concluded the proceedings, directing the district commission to await further directions from the High Court. Salman Khan was represented by Senior Advocate Ravi Prakash, along with a legal team including Chandrima Mitra and others. Advocate Indra Mohan Singh appeared for the respondents, while Varun Singh and his colleagues represented Rajshree Pan Masala.