NCDRC Keeps In Abeyance Arrest Warrants Against Actor Salman Khan Over Alleged Misleading Advertisement

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in an interim order on Wednesday (April 8) has kept in abeyance bailable arrest warrants issued by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission against actor Salman Khan, in a complaint alleging misleading advertisement by Rajshree Pan Masala starring the actor.

The Commission also stayed all further proceedings against the actor before the District Commission.

Khan has challenged an order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC), Rajasthan dated March 16 whereby the State Commission had declined to interfere with the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated January 15.

After hearing the submissions, a bench of President Justice AP Sahi and Member Bharat Kumar Pandya in its order said:

"In order to appreciate the arguments and the submissions raised, it would be appropriate to examine the records of the District Commission as well as the State Commission. We therefore direct that the State Commission, Rajasthan shall send for the entire records of the District Commission as well as its own records pertaining to the subject matter including the proceedings under Section 72 and 73 alongwith complete order sheets and dispatch the same to the Registrar of this Commission for being perused by us. The records shall be sent by a Special Messenger after summoning the District Commission records as well. All records and orders be uploaded on the State Commission website if not already done to make it accessible the District Commission and the State Commission are directed to comply with this order and forthwith dispatch the records to this Commission to be presented before us on Tuesday next i.e. 14.04.2026"

The NCDRC issued notice to respondent no.1-complainant and said:

"In the background as indicated above, and also the issues raised since we have summoned the original records of the District Commission, all further proceedings before it shall remain stayed and the Authorities to whom directions have been issued by the District Commission shall be duly intimated of these proceedings. We have summoned the original records of the District Commission, all further proceedings before it shall remain stayed and the Authorities to whom directions have been issued by the District Commission shall be duly intimated of these proceedings. 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 actor is the brand ambassador of 'Silver Coated Elaichi' a product of Rajshree Pan Masala. Respondent no. 1, a practicing advocate in Jaipur filed a consumer complaint with the District Forum alleging that the advertisement for the product was misleading and sought a ban on the running of the advertisement as well as a penalty.

It was alleged that the ad was being misused for the promotion of a pan masala product by introducing the caption saffron infused product and it was alleged that the product is injurious to health.

Though the matter was listed on January 15, however it was taken up on January 6 and an interim order was passed by the district commission directing the company and the actor from engaging in any misleading publicity until a response to the complaint is filed and the matter was listed on February 6.

Though the company was present before the district forum however the NCDRC noted that the district forum's order nowhere recorded the service of notice to the actor. The order however recorded that the parties had been heard and prima facie findings were recorded.

The actor argued before NCDRC that though the matter was listed on January 15 but before this date the application of the complainant was entertained and interim orders were passed.

When he appeared through counsel on January 15 before the district commission he was informed that the application for interim relief had been taken up already and orders had been passed.

This the actor argued happened without issuance of notice to him or service of the application.

It was submitted that the actor moved two applications on January 15, one for deleting him from the array of parties and the other for dismissal of the complaint. He submitted, that his counsel was intimated that complainant had already filed an application under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act for action against disobedience of interim order.

According to the actor, this new application by the complainant was preferred only on January 15 and pointed to the record for the same. It was submitted that another application had been filed by the complainant with a "peculiar prayer" for issuing warrants against the actor.

Senior advocate Ravi Prakash appearing for Khan submitted that once the actor had already appeared, then the prayer made that since the name of the company's owner is not available therefore warrant be issued against the actor, is completely incoherent. It was submitted that this request was also entertained and the warrants were issued against Khan on January 15 itself by the district commission.

Against this Khan approached the State Commission which passed an order on February 6 granting interim relief. When this order was brought to the notice of the District Commission, a fresh bailable warrant was issued on February 9 on the ground that the State Commission has in its order only directed that arrest warrant be not issued.

Prakash submitted that application for deletion of the actor as well as application for dismissal of complaint have not been taken up despite State Commission's observations directing early disposal of the same.

It was submitted that the State Commission has dismissed revision petitions against orders dated January 6 and 15.

The NCDRC's order notes that the registry of the national commission had raised an objection to the maintainability of the actor's appeal under Section 51(2) of the Act.

It was submitted that against an order passed under Section 73 which is in the nature of first appeal there is no bar on filing a second appeal on substantial questions of law and jurisdiction of national commission is not excluded.

The commission said that Section 73 states that only provision of appeal against order passed under Section 72 is to the State Commission to National Commission as well as to the Supreme Court.

The NCDRC said that in the instant case the dispute was over maintainability of a second appeal where an order has been passed by the State Commission under Section 73 emanating from an order under Section 72.

Section 71 is for enforcement of orders, Section 72 is for penalty for non compliance of orders. Process under Section 72 is in the nature of a summary trial foir which Commission shall have powers of Judicial Magistrate First Class under CrPC, the NCDRC noted.

The commission noted that in the present case the interim order of January 6 has been questioned separately by filing a revision petition which was dismissed on March 15 and against which a writ petition has been filed in the high court.

"The interim order is still in jeopardy as stated by the appellant," the order notes. The counsel sought that the matter be heard and the appeal be entertained to ensure that the fora below proceed in a just manner abiding by rule of law. It was also submitted that despite moving an application for obtaining certified copies of the orders, he has not been provided the same till date.

The NCDRC noted that vakalatnama had been filed by the counsel for respondent no. 2 Rajshree Pan Masala.

"Learned counsel for the parties are also directed to intimate this Commission about any orders being passed by the High Court of Rajasthan or otherwise. The Registrar is directed to communicate this order today itself to the State Commission, Rajasthan as well as to the District Commission, Jaipur-Il for compliance by the date fixed," the NCDRC added.

The matter is next listed on April 15.

Senior advocate Ravi Prakash, along with advocates Parag Khandhar, Chandrima Mitra, Varun Kalra, Astu Khandelwal and Yatharth Shukla appeared for the actor.

Advocates Varun Singh, Shikhar Upadhyay, Divesh Sharma and Utkarsh Sahu appeared for respondent no. 2. Rajshree Pan Masala.

Case title: Salman Salim Khan v/s Yogendra Singh Badiyal & Ors.