Salman Khan approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission alleging unfair treatment by the Jaipur consumer forum in a misleading advertisement case. The Jaipur commission issued bailable warrants over non-compliance with directions to remove the “Rajshree Elaichi” advertisement.
Bollywood star Salman Khan told the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) that the Jaipur District Consumer Commission had treated him unfairly and refused to provide certified copies of its orders in proceedings stemming from a complaint about a misleading advertisement.
The Jaipur forum had recently issued bailable warrants against Khan for allegedly failing to comply with its direction to remove his advertisement for “Rajshree Elaichi”.
Senior Advocate Ravi Prakash, representing Khan, informed the NCDRC that an application for certified copies of the order was still pending, yet versions of the orders had already appeared in the media.
He contended that, despite not having received official copies, coercive measures were being taken against Khan based on those very orders.
The dispute originated from a complaint lodged in December 2025 by Advocate Yogendra Singh Badiyal before the Jaipur District Consumer Commission against Rajshree Pan Masala and Salman Khan. The complaint claims that the “Rajshree Elaichi” ads serve as a surrogate for pan masala promotion and constitute misleading advertising under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Khan is named as Opposite Party No. 2 in his capacity as the brand ambassador.
On January 6, 2026, the district commission issued an interim order directing the respondents to refrain from misleading advertisements until they filed a reply. According to Khan’s petition, that order was passed ex parte and without notice to him.
ALSO READ: Black Buck Poaching: Rajasthan High Court to Hear Salman Khan’s Appeal on September 22
The complainant later alleged non-compliance with the interim order, citing a hoarding featuring Khan’s image, and filed a contempt petition under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act.
On January 15, 2026, the first date on which Khan appeared, the district commission issued bailable warrants against him in the contempt proceedings.
Khan appealed the issuance of these warrants to the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission under Section 73 (appeal against orders in enforcement proceedings).
In a judgment dated March 16, 2026, the State Commission dismissed the appeal and upheld the district commission’s action, finding that the contempt proceedings followed the applicable procedure.
The State Commission declined to interfere with the bailable warrants issued against Khan and others.
The petition before the NCDRC states that the order “was not in the knowledge of the petitioner and never served.” It argued that penal proceedings under Section 72 could not be initiated without proper service.
Prakash also told the NCDRC that following the issuance of bailable warrants, the district commission went further by ordering creation of a Special Task Force to secure Khan’s presence.
ALSO READ: Salman Khan Shooting Case: MCOCA Court Denies Bail to Lawrence Bishnoi Gang Member
He argued such measures were highly unusual for consumer proceedings and highlighted the coercive and disproportionate approach taken in the case.
The NCDRC observed concerns that orders appeared in the media before being provided to the parties.
While assessing maintainability, it noted that the complaints about denial of certified copies and the conduct of the proceedings raised serious issues.
At the same time, the commission emphasized that its jurisdiction is defined by statute and cannot be extended beyond the Act’s framework.
Prakash was assisted by a DSK Legal team including Advocate Parag Khandhar (Partner) and Chandrima Mitra (Partner).
Rajshree was represented by a Foresight Legal team comprising Advocates Varun Singh and Shiker Upadhyay.
Case Title: Salman Salim Khan v. Yogendra Badiyal
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE