SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(UK) 175

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA, J.
India School Society (Registered) - Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 905 of 2018 (M/S)
Decided On : 01-04-2019

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Anurag Bisaria, Standing Counsel

The use of the word 'Indian' in a society's name may convey the impression of enjoying the patronage of the Government of India, justifying restrictions under the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950.

Headnote:

Society Name Restriction - Use of 'Indian' - Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950, Section 2(a), Section 3 - The court discussed the implications of the Act of 1950 and its Schedule, specifically focusing on the restriction on the use of emblems and names, and the interpretation of Entry 7 of the Schedule. The court emphasized that the use of the word 'Indian' in the society's name conveyed a message of enjoying the patronage of the Government of India, thus justifying the restriction imposed by the impugned order.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner Society was directed to remove the word 'Indian' from its name based on a Government Order imposing restrictions from the use of the word 'Indian' in the name of societies. The petitioner challenged this order, arguing that the Act only barred the use of 'India' and not 'Indian'.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the restriction on the use of the word 'Indian' was justified under the Act of 1950, as it conveyed the impression of enjoying the patronage of the Government of India.

Issues: Interpretation of the Government Order and its applicability to the petitioner Society, distinction between the use of 'Indian' and 'India' under the Act of 1950.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the use of the word 'Indian' in the society's name conveyed the impression of enjoying the patronage of the Government of India, justifying the restriction imposed by the impugned order.

Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

JUDGMENT :

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA, J.

1. In the present Writ Petition, a very interesting question, which has emerged for consideration before this Court is pertaining to the use and the nomenclature of the petitioner Society, with which, it was registered as back as in 1982-83, showing it as to be a Society registered in the name of “Indian School Society, Jogiwala, Deharadun”. It also reflects with the said name, it was continued to be reviewed from time to time by the Registrar of the Societies. The necessity arose for the petitioner to file the instant Writ Petition, when he was faced with the order dated 10th July, 2017, as passed by respondent No. 3, whereby, while making reference to the extent made in Clause 1 and 2, directed the petitioner Society to remove the word ‘Indian’ from its name. Having reference to the Clauses 1 and 2 of the letter dated 10th July, 2017, it reads as under :-

*vkids mijksDr lkslkbVh ds uohuhdj.k gsrq izLrqr izi=ksa esa fuEu dfe;ka ik;h x;h gS&

1- vkidh lkslkbVh ds uke ds lkFk bafM;u 'kCn tksMk x;k gSA 'kklukns'k la0
01/XXBOO(6)-4-B-135-2011] foRr vuqHkkx&6] fnukad 11&01&2017 ds dze esa fuca/kd] QElZ lkslkbVht ,ao fpVl] mRrjk[kaM] nsgjknwu ds i=kad 4628] fnuakd 25 tuojh 2017 ds vuqikyu esa vki lkslkbVh ds uke ls bafM;u 'kCn dks gVkdj] uke ifjorZu dh lk/kkj.k lHkk ds 2@3 cgqer ls ikfjr izLrko dh Vafdr dk;Zokgh dh nks izfr;ksa dks izLrqr djsaA

2- lkslkbVh ds u;s uke ls la’kksf/kr Le`fr i= rFkk fu;ekoyh dh nks&nks Vafdr izfr;ksa dks lfpo rFkk 3- vU; inkf/kdkfj;ksa ds ewy gLrk{kjksa ls lR;kfir djk djds izLrqr djsaA*

2. For the reason, which has been assigned in the said two clauses, which are questioned in the present writ petition, is that in terms of the Government Order No. 01/XXVII (6)-4-B 135-2011 dated 11th January, 2017, as issued by the Additional Secretary, it has imposed restriction from the use of the word ‘Indian’ in the name of the Society of the petitioner. The Government Order as referred above dated 11th January, 2017, which has been passed by the Additional Secretary, though, it was in reference to the name of the Society called as “Indian Confederation of Medical Laboratory Sciences, Haridwar”, whereby, while interpreting the implications of Section 2 (a) and Section 3 along with the Schedule of the Act, called as Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950, has held that the use of word “Indian” happens to be in contravention to the provisions of the Act of 1950. Consequently, it was as per the said Government Order, which was made applicable, in relation to the Indian Confederation of Medical Laboratory Science, that it prohibited the use of word “Indian”. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said Government Order dated 11th January, 2017, which is the basis of passing of the impugned order in relation to the petitioner dated 10th July, 2017, could not have been borrowed because it was not a Government Order which was issued by way of general directions.

3. For the purposes of establishing his case, the learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the only bar which has been created by the Act is for the use of word “India” and not “Indian” and, hence, the implication of the Government Order dated 11th January, 2017, which was in relation to another Society, could not have been borrowed for imposing the restriction by Clause 1 and 2 of the impugned order dated 10th July, 2017, issued against the petitioner.

4. An interesting issue, which crops up for consideration before this Court is that the Act was incorporated in 1950, it was having an intend to prohibit the use of emblems and names as enumerated therein for the purposes of use of it by the organization engaged in professional or commercial activities. The term emblem has been defined under Section 2 (a) of the Act of 1950, which reads as under :-

“2. Definition. – In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, -

(a) “emblem” means any emblem, seal, flag, insignia, coat-of-arms or pictori
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top