About the cast against Salman Khan
The case stems from a complaint filed by Yogendra Singh Badiyal, alleging misleading advertisements by Rajshree Pan Masala and its brand ambassador Salman Khan.The products were promoted as “saffron-infused cardamom” and “saffron-infused pan masala.” “Such claims create a false impression of safety and quality, while the consumption of pan masala is widely known to be associated with serious health risks, including cancer,” Badiyal argued. On January 6, 2026, the Commission had imposed an interim ban on the promotion and advertisement of these products. However, advertisements reportedly continued on January 9, including hoardings across Jaipur, Kota, and other cities, which the Commission viewed as a violation of its order.
Salman Khan challenges order
In March, Salman and the pan masala company reportedly challenged prior orders, stating that actions over misleading ads should only be initiated by the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA), New Delhi, or authorised officers. They also claimed that the complainant did not qualify as a “consumer.” However, as per reports, a bench led by Justice Devendra Kachhawaha, along with judicial member Arun Kumar Agrawal and member Liyaqat Ali, countered that centralising such powers in New Delhi could hinder effective consumer relief across India.
Consumer Commission issues bailable warrants against Salman Khan
The Consumer Commission had issued bailable warrants against Salman Khan on four occasions, though they were not successfully served. During a recent hearing, the Commission had expressed strong displeasure and warned of stricter action in case of non-compliance.The Commission had observed that celebrity status does not place anyone above the law and noted that repeated non-appearance despite warrants undermines public confidence in the justice system.It had even directed the Director General of Police to form a task force to serve the warrant in Mumbai, but the process remained unsuccessful.