Salman Khan: Rajasthan Consumer Commission Stays Forensic Test Order In Endorsement Dispute

Salman Khan: The Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has put a temporary halt on an order passed by the Kota District Consumer Commission that directed a forensic examination of Bollywood actor Salman Khan’s signatures. The matter is linked to allegations of misleading advertisements related to pan masala products and has now been transferred for further hearing to the Kota Circuit Bench of the State Consumer Commission.

Background of the Consumer Dispute Case

The controversy began when a complaint was filed before the Kota District Consumer Commission against Rajshree Pan Masala and its brand ambassador, Salman Khan. The complainant alleged that the advertisements promoted by the company were misleading and deceptive in nature. According to the complaint, the products were marketed as saffron infused cardamom and saffron infused pan masala, which allegedly misrepresented the actual ingredients and value of the product.

The complainant argued that saffron is an extremely expensive commodity, costing nearly four lakh rupees per kilogram, and questioned how such an ingredient could realistically be used in a product sold at a price of five rupees per pouch. Based on this reasoning, the advertisements were described as misleading to consumers and harmful to public interest.

Dispute Over Authenticity of Documents

During the proceedings before the Kota District Consumer Commission, a reply to the complaint was submitted on behalf of Salman Khan, along with a power of attorney document. However, the complainant raised objections regarding the authenticity of these documents. It was claimed that the signatures appearing on the reply and the power of attorney were not genuine and did not belong to Salman Khan.

Instead of first deciding on objections related to the maintainability of the complaint, the district commission ordered a Forensic Science Laboratory examination to verify the authenticity of the actor’s signatures. This decision became the central issue challenged in the revision petition.

Arguments Presented in the Revision Petition

Rajshree Pan Masala approached the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission by filing a revision petition against the district commission’s order. Counsel appearing for the company submitted that the order for forensic examination was unnecessary and premature. It was argued that objections had already been raised before the district commission and should have been decided first before passing such directions.

The revision petitioner also emphasized that Salman Khan was endorsing cardamom products and not pan masala, as alleged in the complaint. This distinction, according to the petitioner, was crucial and had not been adequately considered by the district commission.

Reference to Previous Similar Complaint

Another significant point highlighted during the hearing was the complainant’s past conduct. The revision petition stated that the complainant had earlier filed a similar complaint against another brand, Vimal, which also featured cardamom in its advertisements. That complaint, however, was later withdrawn. This fact was cited to question the intent and consistency of the complainant’s actions.

Concern Over Unnecessary Litigation

The revision petition further stated that an agreement had already been reached between Rajshree Pan Masala and Salman Khan. Due to this understanding, the company argued that the district commission’s order exposed them to avoidable and prolonged litigation. As a result, the petitioner claimed to be an aggrieved party deserving immediate relief from the state commission.

State Commission’s Decision and Next Steps

After considering the submissions, the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission stayed the order directing the forensic examination of Salman Khan’s signatures. The commission also issued a notice to the complainant and referred the matter to the Kota Circuit Bench for further proceedings.

This decision effectively pauses the forensic process and shifts the focus back to legal examination of the objections and merits of the complaint. The case is expected to continue at the circuit bench, where broader issues related to consumer protection, advertising ethics, and legal procedure will be examined in detail.

The outcome of this case is being closely watched, as it raises important questions about celebrity endorsements, advertising transparency, and the limits of consumer litigation in India.