Rajasthan High Court Stays Consumer Case Against Salman Khan in Rajshree Elaichi Ad Dispute

In Salman Khan Vs Yogendra Singh Badiyal, the Rajasthan High Court has stayed consumer court proceedings against actor Salman Khan in the Rajshree Elaichi advertisement dispute. The case concerns allegations that the ad was actually a surrogate promotion for pan masala and therefore a misleading advertisement.

Justice Anuroop Singhi passed the interim order while hearing Khan’s writ petition against actions taken by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur. The High Court also issued notice to the complainant, advocate Yogendra Singh Badiyal, and sought his response in the matter.

The complaint had been filed in December 2025 against Salman Khan and Rajshree Pan Masala. It alleged that the advertisement for “Rajshree Elaichi” was not merely about silver-coated elaichi, but was in substance a disguised promotion of pan masala, attracting the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Khan was made a party to the complaint in his role as the brand ambassador. Earlier, the District Commission had restrained the advertisements and later issued bailable warrants against him. That order was subsequently upheld by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

Before the High Court, Senior Advocate GS Bapna, appearing for Khan, argued that the actor had only endorsed the company’s elaichi product and had never promoted pan masala. He submitted that the complaint was entirely misplaced and legally unsustainable.

It was also argued that complaints relating to misleading advertisements fall within the powers of the Central Consumer Protection Authority, and not the District Consumer Commission. On this basis, Khan’s side questioned the jurisdiction of the consumer forum to proceed with the matter.

Another important argument raised was that the District Commission’s interim order dated January 6 had been passed without notice to Khan and was never served on him. His counsel contended that contempt proceedings under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act could not validly continue without proper service.

The High Court took note of the fact that Khan had also approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission against the order issuing bailable warrants. The NCDRC had already stayed the execution of those warrants on April 8.

After considering these developments, the High Court stayed further proceedings in the consumer complaint pending before the District Commission. It also extended similar relief to Kamal Kant & Company, the manufacturer of Rajshree Pan Masala.

The matter is now listed for further hearing on May 12. For the moment, the High Court’s order has paused the consumer proceedings, while the larger questions on jurisdiction, service of notice, and the nature of the advertisement remain to be examined.