Orissa High Court Appoints Amici to Address Rampant Misuse of State Emblem

Bhubaneswar, Orissa – The Orissa High Court has initiated a significant judicial examination into the widespread and improper use of the State Emblem of India, signaling a move towards reinforcing the sanctity of national symbols. Expressing grave concern over the rampant violations of the governing statute, the Court has appointed two senior advocates as Amicus Curiae to assist in developing a comprehensive strategy focused on public awareness and prevention.

A Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman, took up the matter while hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the 'Alone Trust'. The petition, brought forth by its managing trustee, Danda Santosh Kumar, detailed numerous instances of the emblem's misuse, urging the court to issue corrective directions. Rather than solely pursuing punitive measures, the Court has chosen to address the root cause of the problem: a pervasive lack of awareness regarding the legal framework governing the emblem's use.

The next hearing in this critical matter is scheduled for September 2, 2025, allowing ample time for the appointed Amici to formulate their recommendations.

The Court's Proactive Stance: Awareness Over Punishment

In its observations, the High Court articulated a nuanced approach, emphasizing the need for systemic change over individual prosecution. The Bench noted that while it possesses the authority to direct legal proceedings against offenders, a more constructive path lies in education and prevention.

The Court observed: "There is no fetter on the part of the Court in passing a direction for initiation of a proceeding against the persons, who violate any of the provisions of the said Act or misuses the State Emblem of India but this Court feels that the larger issue is required to be addressed so that the misuse of such Act can be prevented and there should be a spreading of awareness into a common citizenry of the State, including the officials while using the State Emblem of India."

This statement underscores a judicial philosophy aimed at fostering a culture of respect for national symbols. By focusing on the "larger issue," the Court seeks to prevent future infractions by ensuring that both government functionaries and the general public understand the legal and symbolic importance of the State Emblem. To spearhead this effort, the Bench has appointed Senior Advocate Manoj Kumar Mishra, who also serves as the President of the Orissa High Court Bar Association, and Senior Advocate Subir Palit as Amicus Curiae, or "friends of the court." Their role will be to provide expert assistance and propose viable solutions to curb the emblem's misuse.

Legal Framework: The State Emblem of India Act, 2005

At the heart of this issue is the State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005 , and the accompanying State Emblem of India (Regulation of Use) Rules, 2007 . This legislation was enacted to regulate the use of the emblem, which is an adaptation of the Lion Capital of Ashoka at Sarnath. The Act explicitly prohibits the use of the emblem for professional and commercial purposes and provides a detailed schedule of constitutional and statutory authorities who are authorized to use it.

Key provisions of the Act include:

Section 3: Prohibits the improper use of the State Emblem. Use of the emblem for any trade, business, calling, or profession without the Central Government's permission is a punishable offense.

Section 4: Restricts the use of the emblem on official seals, stationery, and vehicles to only those authorities specified in the Act's schedule. This schedule includes high-ranking dignitaries such as the President, Vice-President, Governors, Chief Justices, Cabinet Ministers, and specific government departments.

Section 7: Prescribes penalties for contravention, including imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with a fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.

The PIL filed by 'Alone Trust' likely presented evidence of the emblem being used by unauthorized individuals on personal vehicles, letterheads, and visiting cards, a common practice that dilutes the emblem's significance and violates the express provisions of the 2005 Act.

Implications for the Legal and Administrative Community

The Orissa High Court's intervention carries significant implications for legal practitioners, government officials, and the public administration system at large.

1. Increased Scrutiny and Compliance: Government departments and public officials will face heightened scrutiny regarding their use of the emblem. Legal advisors to government bodies will need to re-emphasize the strict guidelines laid out in the 2005 Act and 2007 Rules to ensure compliance.
2. Potential for State-Wide Directives: The involvement of Amici suggests that the Court is looking beyond the specifics of the PIL. Their recommendations could lead to the issuance of comprehensive guidelines or circulars by the state government, mandating training sessions for officials on the proper use of national symbols.
3. A Model for Other Jurisdictions: The proactive, awareness-centric approach adopted by the Orissa High Court could serve as a precedent for other High Courts across the country to address similar issues of emblem misuse within their respective states.
4. Role of Bar Associations: The appointment of the President of the High Court Bar Association as an Amicus Curiae highlights the integral role the legal community is expected to play in this awareness campaign. Bar associations may be called upon to disseminate information and educate their members, who in turn interact with various sections of society.

The decision to appoint esteemed Senior Advocates as Amici underscores the Court's commitment to finding a robust and lasting solution. Their expertise will be crucial in navigating the complexities of implementing a state-wide awareness program and suggesting amendments to enforcement mechanisms if necessary. This PIL is poised to become a landmark case in the jurisprudence concerning the protection and preservation of the dignity of India's national symbols.