Protection of National Emblems and Names: Mandatory Enforcement of Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Laws

Introduction

This commentary concerns the Karnataka High Court’s decision in High Court Legal Services Committee v. Principal Secretary, Government of Karnataka (Writ Petition No. 4635 of 2024), delivered on April 4, 2025 by Chief Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice M.I. Arun. The public interest petition was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the High Court Legal Services Committee, seeking a writ of mandamus to enforce several statutory provisions—including the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950, its Rules of 1982, the State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005, and related Central and Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules—against the unauthorized use of national and state emblems, names and symbols on private vehicle number plates and in other public displays.

Key issues:

• Widespread misuse of names of constitutional bodies (e.g., “Human Rights Commission”) on private vehicles.
• Failure of executive authorities to implement existing statutes and rules against improper use of emblems and names.
• Need for specific directions to enforce statutory prohibitions and sensitize implementing agencies.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court noted that national and state emblems and names embody sovereignty, history, culture and fundamental values. After reviewing earlier orders in Sri Ananda Shetty v. The State (Criminal Petition No. 1850 of 2017), which had identified persistent misuse of official names on private number plates, the Court held that:

• A writ of mandamus must issue to the Union Ministries of Home Affairs, Road Transport, Consumer Affairs and the Karnataka Departments of Home and Transport to strictly implement the relevant Acts and Rules.
• Public notices in print and visual media must be issued to remove all unauthorized flags, emblems, names, symbols, stickers, seals and logos within four weeks.
• Authorities must sensitize officers, register offences where misuse persists, impose penalties, and involve schools and law students in awareness drives.
• Traffic police must be trained to identify violations and take penal action; rules should be amended to provide fines and licence cancellations for offenders.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

• M/s Sable Waghire & Co. v. Union of India (1975 1 SCC 763): Upheld sections 3 and 4 of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950, as reasonable restrictions under Article 19(1)(f) & (g). The Supreme Court emphasized the principle that “What is in a name may not always be innocent” and validated the power to regulate trade in emblems when national or sovereign connotations are at stake.
• Sri Ananda Shetty v. The State (Karnataka HC, 2023): Identified misuse of statutory body names on private vehicles in Bengaluru and directed the State to remove unauthorized number plates and impose penalties.
• S. Mukachand Bothra v. Central Government (Madras HC, 2022): Criticized complete lack of implementation of the Emblems and Names Act and Rules in Tamil Nadu, despite rampant misuse by former public functionaries and private persons. The court urged urgent enforcement to prevent offences arising from unauthorized display of national symbols.

Legal Reasoning

The High Court’s reasoning rests on three pillars:

1. Sovereign Dignity: National emblems, symbols and names represent the pride, sovereignty and ethos of the Republic. Unauthorized use dilutes that dignity and misleads the public into believing a private display or document is government-authorized.
2. Statutory Mandate: The Emblems and Names Act, 1950, and the State Emblem of India Act, 2005, along with their Rules, contain express prohibitions against use of specified emblems, pictorial representations, names and colourable imitations for commercial or private purposes. Sections 3 and 4 of the 1950 Act and Section 3 of the 2005 Act impose clear conditions and penalties, and Rule 10 of the 2007 Rules prohibits any use by unauthorized persons, including former officials.
3. Public Interest and Writ Jurisdiction: Under Articles 226 and 227, the High Court has a duty to enforce constitutional rights and statutory obligations when the executive fails to act. The persistent non-implementation of penal provisions justified issuance of mandamus and specific directions to bridge the enforcement gap.

Impact

This judgment is likely to have significant ramifications:

• Executive agencies nationwide will be under judicial scrutiny to enforce emblem-use laws, not just in Karnataka but by persuasive force in other jurisdictions.
• Private misuse of national symbols on vehicles, letterheads, flags, stickers and other media will attract renewed vigilance from police, transport authorities and consumer affairs departments.
• The decision reinforces the principle that reasonable restrictions on trade and expression under Article 19 are valid when national sovereignty and public trust are involved.
• Law students, schools and civil society will be called upon to conduct awareness campaigns, embedding respect for national symbols in the public consciousness.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950: Prohibits use of certain emblems (flag, seal, coat-of-arms, names) in trade or business without central approval. Section 3 bans trade use; Section 4 penalizes wrongful gain; Section 9 empowers rule-making.
• Colourable Imitation: Any design or depiction that closely resembles a protected emblem, creating a false impression of official sanction.
• Writ of Mandamus: A judicial order directing a public authority to perform a statutory duty it has neglected or refused to execute.
• State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005: Specifically governs the use of the national emblem, requiring prior sanction for any display and penalizing misuse by private individuals, bodies and even former officials.
• Rule 10 (2007 Rules): A blanket prohibition on any use of the State Emblem by unauthorized persons, organizations or professions, including on stationery and vehicles.

Conclusion

The Karnataka High Court’s decision establishes a robust precedent for proactive judicial enforcement of emblem-protection statutes. By issuing a writ of mandamus and specific implementation directives, the Court has underscored the sanctity of national and state symbols and bridged the yawning gap between legislative intent and executive action. Future litigants and courts will look to this judgment as guidance on the interplay between Article 19 freedoms and reasonable restrictions designed to safeguard the sovereign dignity of the Republic.