The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has stayed further proceedings, including the execution of bailable warrants, against actor Salman Salim Khan in a matter arising out of alleged non-compliance with an interim order passed by consumer fora in Rajasthan.

The appeal was filed before the NCDRC challenging the legality of orders passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) and the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), which had issued bailable warrants against the appellant for purported non-compliance with an interim order dated January 6, 2026.

During the hearing on April 6, 2026, counsel for the appellant raised multiple objections, including lack of jurisdiction on the ground that proceedings under Section 89 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 can only be initiated by the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) or an authorised officer. It was further contended that the complainant lacked locus standi, and that the interim order was passed ex parte without affording an opportunity of hearing, in violation of principles of natural justice.

The appellant also argued that he could not be held liable as an endorser, being merely a brand ambassador with no control over the advertisements in question. It was additionally submitted that the DCDRC failed to adjudicate jurisdictional objections before passing coercive directions, and that the SCDRC mechanically affirmed the order without independent application of mind. Allegations of mala fide conduct were also raised, noting that similar complaints had previously been withdrawn on grounds of non-maintainability.

Taking note of the submissions, the NCDRC directed that the complete records of proceedings before the DCDRC, including those under Section 72 of the Act, be requisitioned through the SCDRC and placed before it for examination. The Commission further ordered that notice be issued to Respondent No. 1.

Importantly, the NCDRC stayed all proceedings arising from the impugned orders and directed that execution of any warrants issued by the DCDRC shall remain in abeyance until further orders.

The matter is now listed for further hearing on April 15, 2026.

Appearance:
The appellant was represented by DSK Legal through Mr. Parag Khandhar (Partner), Ms. Chandrima Mitra (Partner), Mr. Tapan Radkar, and Ms. Zara Dhanbhoora, along with Senior Counsel Mr. Ravi Prakash.