NCDRC Pulls Up Jaipur Consumer Commission for Issuing Bailable Warrants Against Salman Khan Without Prima Facie Findings

June 4, 2026 : The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has strongly criticised the Jaipur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for issuing bailable warrants against actor Salman Khan in a consumer complaint alleging misleading advertisements connected with Rajshree Pan Masala. The Commission held that the District Commission failed to exercise judicial discretion in accordance with law and passed coercive orders without first satisfying the basic requirements of natural justice.

A Bench comprising President Justice A.P. Sahi and Member Bharatkumar Pandya observed that the District Commission did not undertake even a prima facie examination of whether the advertisement in question amounted to a misleading advertisement or surrogate advertising before issuing coercive directions against Salman Khan. The Bench noted that the District Commission made no meaningful attempt to distinguish between a misleading advertisement and surrogate marketing before concluding that the advertisement indirectly promoted a tobacco product.

The NCDRC further observed that the District Commission failed to record even a preliminary opinion regarding the nature of the product being advertised. Instead, it proceeded on the assumption that Salman Khan and Rajshree Pan Masala had already violated statutory provisions, despite the fact that no evidence had been recorded and the trial had not even commenced.

The Commission also found fault with both the District Commission and the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for diverting the proceedings away from the core issue raised in the consumer complaint. Instead of first determining whether the complaint disclosed a legally sustainable case of misleading advertisement, both forums expanded the proceedings into issues relating to the authenticity of Salman Khan’s signatures.

The dispute originated from a consumer complaint filed in 2025 by Jaipur-based advocate Yogendra Singh Badiyal against Rajshree Pan Masala and Salman Khan. The complainant alleged that an advertisement featuring a silver-coated cardamom product flavoured with saffron was being used as a surrogate to promote Rajshree Pan Masala, thereby misleading consumers in violation of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 (COTPA). The complaint sought an injunction restraining further telecast of the advertisement along with other consequential reliefs.

An application for interim relief accompanied the complaint. Although the matter had initially been listed for January 15, 2026, the District Commission took it up on January 6, 2026, and passed an ex parte interim order restraining Rajshree Pan Masala and Salman Khan from continuing the alleged misleading advertisement until their replies were filed. According to Salman Khan, neither the complaint nor the interim application had been served upon him before the ex parte order was passed.

After entering appearance through counsel, Salman Khan challenged the maintainability of the complaint by filing an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He argued that the advertisement promoted only a silver-coated cardamom product flavoured with saffron, which clearly stated that it contained no tobacco and no nicotine. He further contended that complaints relating to misleading advertisements fall within the statutory jurisdiction of the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA).

Despite his appearance through counsel, the complainant initiated proceedings under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging non-compliance with the interim order. On the same day, without granting Salman Khan an opportunity of hearing, the District Commission issued bailable warrants against him. It also allowed an application seeking forensic verification of his signatures and later constituted a Special Task Force, directing the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of Police, Jaipur, to ensure execution of the warrants.

Aggrieved by the interim order and the subsequent coercive directions, Salman Khan and Rajshree Pan Masala approached the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Although the State Commission initially restrained the District Commission from issuing arrest warrants and directed it to decide Khan’s application expeditiously, it later declined to interfere with the proceedings, prompting Khan to approach the NCDRC.

The National Commission observed that the advertisement itself expressly declared that the product contained no tobacco or nicotine. However, neither the District Commission nor the State Commission examined that aspect or recorded any prima facie finding as to whether the advertisement could legally be classified as misleading or as surrogate advertising.

Referring to Section 38(8) of the Consumer Protection Act, the NCDRC reiterated that consumer commissions must exercise judicial discretion while granting interim relief by carefully evaluating the pleadings and recording prima facie satisfaction based on the material available on record. The Commission emphasised that ex parte interim orders cannot virtually grant final relief or proceed on the assumption that the alleged statutory violation has already been established.

The Bench further observed that the District Commission appeared to have treated its ex parte interim order as final and proceeded as though the alleged violation had already been proved without any adjudication on merits. It also questioned the decision to constitute a Special Task Force for executing summons and to order forensic examination of Salman Khan’s signatures despite the fact that he had already entered appearance through legal counsel.

Taking note of the Rajasthan High Court’s order dated April 7, 2026, staying the operation of the orders passed by both the District Commission and the State Commission as well as further proceedings in the consumer complaint, the NCDRC held that Salman Khan should pursue his remedy before the High Court. The Commission accordingly disposed of the proceedings before it and directed the Jaipur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to await further orders of the Rajasthan High Court before proceeding with the matter.