The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission stayed execution of bailable warrants issued against Salman Khan in a misleading advertisement complaint. The Commission also sought complete records, including contempt proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has stayed the execution of bailable warrants issued against Salman Khan in a complaint concerning a misleading advertisement.
The Commission has also requested the complete case record, including contempt proceedings under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, to fully consider the matters raised.
ALSO READ: Consumer Forum Treated Unfairly and Denied Certified Orders: Salman Khan Tells NCDRC
A bench comprising President Justice (retd) A.P. Sahi and Member Bharatkumar Pandey ordered the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to obtain the records from the District Commission and transmit them to the NCDRC via a special messenger.
The Commission stated,
“All further proceedings pursuant to the impugned orders shall remain stayed,”
It additionally directed that execution of any warrants issued by the district commission remain suspended until the matter is finally decided. Notice has been issued to the complainant, Advocate Yogendra Singh Badiyal.
The matter is listed for hearing on April 15, 2026.
On the previous day, Senior Advocate Ravi Prakash, representing Khan, argued that the district commission’s actions were coercive and disproportionate. He noted that applications for certified copies of the orders were pending, even though the orders had already been reported in the media.
Prakash further contended that coercive measures, including issuance of bailable warrants, were taken without proper service of the orders on Khan.
He also highlighted that the district commission had ordered the formation of a Special Task Force to secure Khan’s presence, a directive he described as highly unusual in consumer proceedings.
The NCDRC observed that reviewing the original record was necessary to assess these concerns.
The dispute originated from a complaint filed in December 2025 before the Jaipur District Consumer Commission against Rajshree Pan Masala and Salman Khan.
The complaint alleges the advertisement constitutes surrogate promotion of pan masala and is a misleading advertisement under the Consumer Protection Act.
Khan was named as Opposite Party No. 2 in his capacity as brand ambassador for “Rajshree Elaichi”.
ALSO READ: Black Buck Poaching: Rajasthan High Court to Hear Salman Khan’s Appeal on September 22
On January 6, 2026, the District Commission issued an interim order instructing the respondents to refrain from issuing misleading advertisements.
Khan’s petition states that this order was passed ex parte and without notice to him.
Subsequently, a contempt petition under Section 72 was filed alleging breach of that interim order based on a hoarding featuring Khan.
On January 15, 2026, the District Commission issued bailable warrants against Khan in the contempt proceedings. Khan appealed that order to the Rajasthan State Commission under Section 73 (appeal against enforcement orders).
By its judgment dated March 16, 2026, the State Commission dismissed the appeal and sustained the issuance of bailable warrants.
Salman Khan was represented by Senior Advocate Ravi Prakash, instructed by Advocates Parag Khandhar and Chandrima Mitra of DSK Legal.
Rajshree was represented by Advocates Varun Singh and Shiker Upadhyay of Foresight Legal.
Case Title: Salman Salim Khan v. Yogendra Badiyal.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE