NCDRC pulls up Jaipur consumer forum over bailable warrants against Salman Khan in Rajshree ad case

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) recently took exception to the Jaipur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission issuing bailable warrants to actor Salman Khan without properly examining the complaint of misleading advertisements against him [Salman Salim Khan v. Yogendra Singh Badiyal & Ors.].

In its July 2 order, a Bench of Justice AP Sahi and Member Bharatkumar Pandya observed that the district commission had not even made the "minimum effort" to examine the distinction between a misleading advertisement and surrogate or shadow marketing before concluding that the advertisement promoted a tobacco product.

The NCDRC said that the district commission should have first examined whether the complaint disclosed a case of misleading advertisement before issuing bailable warrants.

"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. There is a complete absence of even a prima facie assessment about the product and the same appears to be lacking in the order of the State Commission as well," the NCDRC observed.

It further said that the district commission and the state commission should have focused on the allegations in the complaint rather than expanding the proceedings into issues relating to the genuineness of Khan's signatures.

"The question that begs consideration is should the District Commission or a State Commission have focussed on the real issue pertaining to the correctness or otherwise of the allegations in the complaint instead of expanding on the law of evidence and travelling towards the forensic examination of the genuineness of the signatures of the appellant."

The case arose from a consumer complaint filed in 2025 by advocate Yogendra Singh Badiyal before the Jaipur district consumer disputes redressal commission against Rajshree Pan Masala and Salman Khan. The complaint alleged that Rajshree Pan Masala was being advertised as a product with saffron and cardamom, that the advertisement was misleading, and that it violated the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003.

Along with the complaint, Badiyal sought interim relief to restrain the advertisement. On January 6, 2026, the district commission passed an ex parte interim order on the application. According to Khan, the order was passed without service of the complaint or the application for interim relief.

Khan appeared through counsel on January 15, 2026 and filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), contending that the advertisement was for a silver-coated cardamom product flavoured with saffron, which expressly stated that it contained "no tobacco" and "no nicotine".

He also contended that complaints relating to misleading advertisements fall within the jurisdiction of the Central Consumer Protection Authority and that the complaint was not maintainable.

On the same day, the complainant initiated proceedings under Section 72 (penalty for non-compliance with orders) of the Consumer Protection Act alleging non-compliance with the interim order.

The district commission issued bailable warrants against Khan and also allowed an application seeking verification of the genuineness of his signatures. It later constituted a special task force for service of summons.

Khan challenged the interim order and the subsequent proceedings before the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

After the State commission declined to interfere, he approached the NCDRC.

The NCDRC observed that the advertisement itself stated that the product contained no tobacco or nicotine. However, the district commission had not analysed that aspect or recorded even a prima facie opinion on whether the advertisement was misleading before granting interim relief.

Referring to Section 38(8) of the Consumer Protection Act, the Commission observed that consumer fora are required to exercise judicial discretion while granting interim relief by correctly evaluating the pleaded facts and recording a prima facie opinion.

It added that interim orders should not travel to the extent of granting final relief, particularly when passed ex parte.

The Commission also said it did not understand the district commission's "anxiety" in constituting a special task force for service of summons or directing verification of Khan's signatures when he was already pursuing the matter through counsel.

After noting that the Rajasthan High Court had already stayed the operation of the relevant orders and further proceedings in the consumer complaint, the NCDRC disposed of the proceedings before it and directed the district commission to await the High Court's orders in the pending writ petitions.

Senior Advocate Ravi Prakash and with advocates Chandrima Mitra, Parag Kandahar, Tapan Redkar, Yatharth Shukla and Sarthak Sehgal appeared for Salman Khan.

Advocate Indra Mohan Singh appeared for respondents.

Advocates Varun Singh, Shikher Upadhyay, Utkarsh Sahu and Prerna Priya appeared for Rajshree Pan Masala.