Consumer forum refused to give certified copies of arrest orders: Salman Khan to NCDRC in case over Rajshree ad

Bollywood actor Salman Khan on Tuesday told the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) that the Jaipur District Consumer Commission treated him unfairly and refused to provide certified copies of its orders in proceedings arising from a complaint over a misleading advertisement. [Salman Salim Khan v. Yogendra Badiyal]

The district consumer forum at Jaipur had recently issued bailable warrants against Khan for failing to comply with its orders to take down his ad for “Rajshree Elaichi”.

Senior Advocate Ravi Prakash, appearing for Khan, submitted that an application seeking certified copies of the order was still pending, while copies of the orders had already surfaced in media reports.

He argued that despite being unable to obtain official copies, coercive steps were allegedly being taken against Khan pursuant to those very orders.

The case arose from a complaint filed in December 2025 before the Jaipur District Consumer Commission by Advocate Yogendra Singh Badiyal against Rajshree Pan Masala and Salman Khan. The complaint alleges that advertisements for “Rajshree Elaichi” are a surrogate for pan masala promotion and amount to misleading advertisements under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Khan has been arrayed as Opposite Party No. 2 in his capacity as brand ambassador.

On January 6, 2026, the district commission passed an interim order directing the respondents to refrain from misleading advertisements until a reply was filed. According to Khan’s plea, this order was passed ex parte and without notice to him.

The complainant subsequently alleged violation of this order based on a hoarding displaying Khan’s image and filed a contempt application under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act.

On January 15, 2026, the first date of Khan’s appearance, the district commission issued bailable warrants against him in the contempt proceedings.

Khan challenged the issuance of bailable warrants before the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission under Section 73 (appeal against orders in enforcement proceedings).

By judgment dated March 16, 2026, the State Commission dismissed the appeal and upheld the district commission’s order, holding that the proceedings were in accordance with the procedure governing contempt proceedings.

The State Commission refused to interfere with the order issuing bailable warrants against Khan and others.

The plea before the NCDRC specifically states that the was “not in the knowledge of the petitioner and never served.” It was argued that penal proceedings under Section 72 could not be initiated in the absence of service.

Prakash further submitted that after the issuance of bailable warrants, the district commission went a step further and directed constitution of a Special Task Force to secure Khan’s presence.

He argued that such directions were highly unusual in consumer proceedings and underscored the coercive and disproportionate manner in which the case was being pursued.

The NCDRC took note of concerns that orders appeared to be reaching the media before being supplied to parties.

While examining maintainability, it noted that the allegations regarding denial of certified copies and the manner of proceedings raised serious concerns.

At the same time, it emphasised that jurisdiction is statutory and cannot be expanded beyond the framework of the Act.

Prakash was briefed by a team from DSK Legal comprising Advocate Parag Khandhar (Partner) and Chandrima Mitra (Partner).

Rajshree was represented by a team from Foresight Legal comprising Advocates Varun Singh and Shiker Upadhyay.