About the opposite actor Salman Khan
The case stems from a complaint filed by Yogendra Singh Badiyal alleging misleading advertisements of 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, and it is widely known that consumption of pan masala is associated with serious health risks, including cancer,” argued Badiyal. On January 6, 2026, the Commission imposed a temporary ban on the promotion and advertising of these products. However, the advertisements, including hoardings in Jaipur, Kota and other cities, continued on January 9, finding the Commission in violation of its order.
Salman Khan questions the order
In March, Salman and the pan masala company reportedly challenged the preliminary orders, stating that action against misleading advertisements should be initiated only by the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA), New Delhi or authorized officers. They also found that the complainant was not classified as a “consumer”. However, according to reports, a bench headed by Justice Devendra Kachhawaha, along with Associate Justice Arun Kumar Agrawal and Associate Justice Liyaqat Ali, responded that centralizing such powers in New Delhi could hamper effective consumer assistance across India.
Consumer Commission issues warrants against Salman Khan
The Consumer Commission had issued bail orders against Salman Khan on four occasions, although they were not properly executed. In a recent hearing, the Commission expressed great displeasure and warned that stricter measures would be taken in case of non-compliance.The commission found that celebrity status does not make anyone above the law and noted that repeated failure to appear despite orders undermines public confidence in the justice system.He even directed the Director General of Police to form a task force in Mumbai to implement the order, but the process was unsuccessful.
