NCDRC stays arrest warrant against Salman Khan in Rajasthan ‘misleading’ advertisement case

Appearing for Salman Khan, the DSK legal team, including advocates Parag Khandhar, Chandrima Mitra, Tapan Radkar, and Zara Dhanbhoora, contended that the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) lacked jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 89 (punishment for false or misleading advertisement) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

They asserted that such action can only be initiated by the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) or an authorised officer.

Case of ‘misleading ad’ of Pan Masala

This legal dispute originated from a consumer complaint filed by Yogendra Singh Badiyal, an advocate and social worker, against Rajshree Pan Masala and Salman Khan before the DCDRC in Rajasthan.

He alleged that advertisements featuring the actor for “silver-coated elaichi” (cardamom) were deceptive and served as a front for promoting pan masala, a product injurious to public health. He sought a penalty of Rs 50 lakh and a permanent ban on the advertisements.

On January 6, the DCDRC issued an interim order restraining the actor and the manufacturer from continuing the publicity of the product until a reply was filed.

Contempt allegations and warrants

On January 15, the complainant filed a contempt plea, asserting that the parties were “fully aware” of the stay but continued to display advertisements at the Nayaputa Stadium in Kota.

Consequently, the district commission issued a bailable warrant against Salman Khan under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Khan’s legal team subsequently appealed to the state commission, which was dismissed on March 16, upholding that the district commission was within its rights to determine if its orders were violated and that the actor had not yet appeared to provide his defence.