Rajasthan High Court stays consumer case against Salman Khan over alleged misleading Rajshree Elaichi pan masala ads, proceedings also stayed against manufacturer
Let me tell you how I stumbled upon the whole drama around Salman Khan’s pan‑masala endorsement. It started when I was scrolling through my phone after a long day at the office, and I saw headlines about the actor getting some sort of legal relief. I thought, "Really? The big star finally got a break?" So I dug a little deeper.
Turns out, the Rajasthan High Court has actually put a pause on a consumer case that was moving through the Jaipur district consumer forum. The case was about alleged misleading ads for a product called Rajshree Elaichi, which many say is just a fancy way to promote pan‑masala under the guise of an “elaichi” product. The district consumer commission had earlier pushed for a restraint on certain advertisements and even asked for bailable warrants against Salman Khan.
Now, here’s where it gets interesting for a regular person like me. Salman Khan filed a petition challenging those earlier orders. On a recent hearing, Justice Anuroop Singhi of the Rajasthan High Court ordered a stay on the entire consumer‑forum proceeding. In simple words, the case is on hold for now.
During the hearing, senior advocate GS Bapna, who is representing Salman Khan, made it clear that Salman Khan only endorsed a “silver‑coated elaichi” product. He said there was never a single advertisement where Salman Khan was seen promoting pan‑masala. According to the counsel, the complaint itself was "ex facie misconceived" – basically, it was flawed right from the start.
Another point the defence raised was about jurisdiction. They argued that the District Consumer Commission does not have the authority to decide on matters of misleading advertisements. According to their view, those issues fall under the Central Consumer Protection Authority, a separate regulatory body that handles such claims. It feels a bit like a cricket match where the umpire is being questioned whether he’s even allowed to give a out – a bit of a legal tug‑of‑war.
There were also procedural snags highlighted. The defence said that an interim order, which was issued earlier in the year, had been passed without proper notice and wasn’t served correctly. They also pointed out that the initiation of contempt proceedings under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, again without proper service, was not on a solid legal footing. On top of that, issuing bailable warrants without any recorded findings seemed, in their words, improper.
What’s more, the high court noted that Salman Khan had already approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) challenging an order that had led to the issuance of those warrants. The NCDRC, acting on the same case, had earlier decided to stay the execution of the bailable warrants. So, essentially, there are two layers of judicial scrutiny happening simultaneously.
As a result of all this, the Rajasthan High Court not only stayed the consumer proceedings but also issued a notice to the complainant, Yogendra Singh Badiyal, asking for a response. The relief has also been extended to Kamal Kant & Company, the company that manufactures the Rajshree Pan Masala brand. So far, the legal battle has put both Salman Khan and the manufacturer on a temporary hold.
The origins of the case go back to a complaint lodged in the previous year by advocate Yogendra Singh Badiyal. The complaint accused Salman Khan and the Rajshree Pan Masala brand of using the Rajshree Elaichi advertisement as a surrogate promotion for pan‑masala, which is prohibited under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. In everyday terms, it was claimed that the “elaichi” ads were just a clever way to get people to think of the brand’s pan‑masala without actually showing the product.
From my perspective, this whole saga reflects how celebrity endorsements can sometimes get tangled in legal webs. In India, we see stars endorsing everything from toothpaste to tea, and often the lines between genuine promotion and indirect advertising get blurry. When a big name like Salman Khan is involved, the stakes get even higher because the brand’s reach expands dramatically.
What’s also fascinating is how the consumer protection machinery works in our country. There are multiple layers – the district consumer commission, the state consumer commission, the national consumer commission, and then the high courts. Each layer can be approached by the aggrieved party, and each has its own rules about jurisdiction and procedure. In this case, the defence argued that the district consumer commission was overstepping its authority, and that the matter should be handled by the Central Consumer Protection Authority.
As a regular citizen, I can see why people might feel confused when they see a celebrity like Salman Khan briefly endorsing a product that looks harmless – a silver‑coated elaichi – and then later get caught up in legal battles about whether that endorsement indirectly promotes a banned product like pan‑masala. It reminds me of the times I see ads for “sugar‑free” biscuits with a famous cricketer’s face, and wonder whether the cricketer actually eats those biscuits or just lends his name.
Coming back to the legal timeline, the next hearing date has been set for sometime in the near future. Both Salman Khan and Kamal Kant & Company will have to respond to the notice sent to Yogendra Singh Badiyal. Until then, the case remains in a kind of legal limbo – paused, but not over.
From where I sit, this whole episode is a reminder of how celebrity culture, consumer rights, and regulatory frameworks intersect in our daily lives. It also shows that even the biggest stars can seek relief from the courts when things get too tangled. Whether the final verdict will favour Salman Khan or the complainant Yogendra Singh Badiyal is still uncertain, but for now, at least, Salman Khan has got a breather.
