Rajasthan HC Stays Consumer Complaint Proceedings Against Salman Khan Over Alleged Misleading Rajshree Pan Masala Advertisement [Read Order]

Rajasthan: The Rajasthan High Court has stayed proceedings in a consumer complaint filed against actor Salman Khan in his capacity as a brand ambassador, holding that the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission lacked jurisdiction to entertain complaints regarding false or misleading advertisements. Justice Anuroop Singhi passed the interim order on April 7, 2026, while admitting a writ petition challenging orders passed by consumer forums.

The case arises from Consumer Complaint No. 879/2025 filed by Yogendra Singh Badiyal and another before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur II, alleging that advertisements of Rajshree Pan Masala published in newspapers are misleading, harmful to public health, and in violation of regulatory frameworks. Salman Khan was arrayed as respondent No. 2 in the complaint solely on the ground of being the brand ambassador for the company’s silver-coated elaichi product and for allegedly appearing in the advertisement of the pan masala.

The petitioner challenged two orders: the order dated March 16, 2026, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, in Revision Petition No. 09/2026, and the order dated January 6, 2026, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur II, in MA/114/2025.

Appearing for the petitioner, senior counsel G.S. Bapna, assisted by advocate Shivangshu Naval, submitted that the petitioner has only endorsed the company’s silver-coated elaichi product and has never advertised or endorsed the pan masala product. Senior counsel argued that the complaint is ex facie frivolous and misconceived, as the petitioner was wrongly implicated solely based on his association with a different product line of the same company.

Senior counsel further submitted that the DCDRC lacked jurisdiction to entertain the said complaint with respect to a false or misleading advertisement, as any such complaint can be filed only before the Central Consumer Protection Authority. It was argued that the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, despite taking cognizance of the said fact, erred in dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner.

Senior counsel contended that, despite the complainant miserably failing to set up a prima facie case in his favour, the ad-interim order dated January 6, 2026, was passed by the DCDRC, Jaipur II. It was further submitted that the said interim order dated January 6, 2026, was never served upon the petitioner and, thus, there was no occasion whatsoever for the complainant to proceed with the filing of contempt proceedings on January 15, 2026, much less for the DCDRC to issue bailable warrants thereon without recording any finding with respect to the service of the order upon the petitioner.

Senior counsel informed the Court that, against the order dated January 15, 2026, passed by the DCDRC, an appeal has already been preferred by the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, bearing Diary No. 7520/NCDRC/2026-FA.

Taking note of the submissions, the Court issued notice to the respondents. Advocate Himmat Singh put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 1, Yogendra Singh Badiyal, who was also present in person before the Court. Advocate Divesh Sharma accepted notice on behalf of respondent No. 2, the company manufacturing the products.

The Court directed that service is complete and that notice need not be filed. The petitioner’s counsel was directed to serve a copy of the writ petition in the offices of the counsel for the respondents within seven days. The names of the counsel for the respondents were directed to be shown in the cause list as learned counsel for their respective respondents.

Counsel for the respondents prayed for and were granted four weeks’ time to file their reply to the writ petition. The matter was listed for further hearing on May 12, 2026, along with S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5836/2026.

Significantly, the Court passed an interim order staying the effect and operation of the order dated March 16, 2026, the order dated January 6, 2026, and further proceedings in Consumer Complaint No. 879/2025 pending before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur II, till the next date of hearing. This interim relief provides temporary protection to the petitioner from the consequences of the impugned orders while the matter remains pending before the High Court.

The case raises important questions regarding the jurisdictional competence of consumer forums to entertain complaints alleging false or misleading advertisements, the liability of brand ambassadors for products they have not endorsed, and the procedural requirements for issuing contempt proceedings and bailable warrants in consumer disputes.

Case Details:

Case Title: Salman Khan vs. Yogendra Singh Badiyal & Another

Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5850/2026

Court: High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur

Judge: Justice Anuroop Singhi

Date of Order: April 7, 2026

Counsel for Petitioner:
Mr. G.S. Bapna, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Shivangshu Naval, Mr. Parag Khandhar, Ms. Akanksha Noval, Mr. Ayush Sharma, Mr. Aarav Jain, and Ms. Zara Dhanbhoora

Counsel for Respondent No. 1:
Mr. Himmat Singh

Counsel for Respondent No. 2:
Mr. Divesh Sharma and Mr. Varun Singh

[Read Order]