The NCDRC has stayed the execution of bailable warrants against actor Salman Khan in a misleading advertisement case linked to a pan masala brand. It has also directed lower commissions to submit records while hearing the matter further
Published Date – 8 April 2026, 05:41 PM
New Delhi: The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has stayed the execution of bailable warrants issued against actor Salman Khan in a case related to an alleged misleading advertisement linked to a pan masala brand, and directed that the original records of the proceedings be produced before it.
A bench comprising NCDRC President Justice AP Sahi and member Bharatkumar Pandey ordered the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to summon the complete records from the Jaipur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and forward them to the registrar of the national commission.
“In order to appreciate the arguments and the issues raised, it would be appropriate to examine the records of the district commission as well as the state commission,” the bench said in its order.
The commission directed that the records, including proceedings initiated under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, be sent through a special messenger after being summoned from the district commission.
Pending consideration of this matter, the NCDRC stated that the execution of any warrants issued by the district commission would remain in abeyance.
“We also direct that the execution of any warrants issued by the district commission shall remain in abeyance till the disposal of this matter before us,” the order stated.
A notice has been issued to the complainant, advocate Yogendra Singh Badiyal, directing that it be served through both the state and district consumer commissions. Additionally, the notice will be sent via registered speed post.
“We therefore direct that the state commission, Rajasthan, shall send for the entire records of the district commission pertaining to the subject matter,” it said.
Furthermore, the bench directed that since the original records of the district commission had been summoned, all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned orders would remain stayed until the matter is considered by it.
Authorities who had previously received directions from the district commission were also instructed to be informed about the ongoing proceedings before the national commission.
The matter is scheduled for admission on April 14, 2026.
Earlier on Tuesday, Senior advocate Ravi Prakash, appearing for Khan, had argued that the district commission adopted coercive and disproportionate measures, including issuing bailable warrants without proper service of orders on the actor.
He contended that applications for certified copies of the orders were pending, despite the orders having been reported in the media.
According to the plea, the district commission had also directed the constitution of a Special Task Force to secure Khan’s presence, which the counsel described as unusual in consumer proceedings.
The dispute originates from a complaint filed in December 2025 with the Jaipur District Consumer Commission against Rajshree Pan Masala and Khan, claiming that their advertisement constituted a surrogate promotion of pan masala and was a misleading advertisement under the Consumer Protection Act.
Khan was named as Opposite Party No. 2 in his capacity as the brand ambassador for “Rajshree Elaichi.”
On January 6, 2026, the district commission passed an interim order directing the respondents to refrain from issuing misleading advertisements.
According to Khan’s plea, the order was passed ex parte without notice to him.
Subsequently, a contempt application under Section 72 of the Act was filed alleging violation of the order based on a hoarding featuring the actor.
On January 15, 2026, the district commission issued bailable warrants against Khan in the contempt proceedings.
Khan challenged the order before the Rajasthan State Consumer Commission under Section 73 of the Act.
However, by a judgment dated March 16, 2026, the state commission dismissed the appeal and upheld the issuance of the bailable warrants.
