All these ten petitions raise a common question as to whether the use of the word “Indian/National” in the name of their schools/colleges entail a contravention of Section 3 of the Emblems & Name (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 (hereinafter “the Act of 1950”) read with Entry No. 7 in the Schedule appended thereto.

2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12988/2013 titled New Indian Public School Society v. State of Rajasthan is taken as the lead case. The determination by this Court therein will apply to all connected matters.

3. The petitioner-Society goes by the name of “New Indian Public School Society, Jhunjhunu. It runs various educational institutions including both schools, colleges/units with the following names i.e. “New Indian Primary School”, “New Indian Public School”, “New Indian Polytechnic College, Dundlod”, “New Indian Women's College”, “New Indian Industrial Training Centre” and “New Indian R.K.C.L. (RSCIT) Centre”. Vide order dated 03.07.2013, the Dy. Director (Secondary), Secondary Education, Government of Rajasthan, Bikaner informed the various District Education Officers that the schools/colleges which included the word “Indian/National” or other similar word in their respective names be required to change their names excluding the said words on payment of requisite fee. It was further stated that those schools/colleges which did not change their name and exclude the word “Indian/National” or similar words therefrom, would be found in contravention of the Act of 1950 and their students would not be allowed to write the examinations conducted by the Board. The petitioner-Society states that the aforesaid order dated 03.07.2013 is arbitrary, based on a misapprehension of Section 3 read with Entry No. 7 of the Schedule to the Act of 1950 and prays that it be quashed and set aside and further that the respondents be directed not to act prejudicially under the misapprehension of law against the schools/colleges run by the petitioner-Society or their students.

4. It has been submitted that the schools and colleges run by the petitioner-Society aforesaid have all requisite permissions, have the names in issue approved by the competent authority under the Act of 1950, where required and are fully compliant with the extant law. These schools and colleges including the word “Indian” as a part of their whole name have been running for over a decade and half consequent to which they have come to acquire a separate and distinct identity and have earned widespread recognition. It has been submitted that the Board of Secondary Education and its officers are not the competent authority under the Act of 1950 to require the petitioner-Society to change or alter the name of its schools and colleges and that too on a misdirected ground. Reference has been made to Section 2(b) of the Act of 1950 to submit that the competent authority to address alleged violation/contravention of the Act of 1950 means any competent authority under any law for the time being in force to register any company, firm or other body of persons or any trade-mark or design or to grant a patent. It has been further submitted that the impugned order dated 03.07.2013 is also bad because it carries no allegation that use of the word “Indian” in the name of the schools and colleges of the petitioner-Society was calculated to suggest or at all suggestive, in the context of the whole of the name of the schools and colleges of the society, of any patronage to the petitioner-society or its schools/colleges by the Government of India. Counsel submitted that the use of the word “Indian” in the name of the schools and colleges run by the petitioner-Society does not even remotely to a reasonable person indicate any connection of the schools and colleges with any local authority or corporation or body constituted by the Government of India. The names of the schools and colleges run by the petitioner-Society as detailed hereinabove nowhere depict any kind of con