The Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950

The Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950: A Legal Analysis of its Scope, Application, and Judicial Interpretation in India

Introduction

The Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 (hereinafter "the Act" or "the 1950 Act") is a significant piece of legislation in India aimed at preventing the unauthorized and improper use of certain official emblems, names, and seals for commercial and other specified purposes. Its primary objective, as evident from its Statement of Objects and Reasons, is to safeguard the sanctity of national symbols, names of national leaders, and emblems of national and international organizations from being exploited for trade, business, calling, or profession in a manner that could offend public sentiment or mislead the public into believing that such usage has official patronage (Sable Waghire & Company And Others v. Union Of India And Others, 1975 SCC 1 763, Supreme Court Of India, 1975, citing Statement of Objects and Reasons). The Act arose from the need to address instances of misuse of the Indian National Flag, emblem, and names or pictorial representations of Mahatma Gandhi and other national leaders for commercial purposes, which existing laws like the Indian Trade Marks Act, 1940, were inadequate to prevent (Sable Waghire & Company, 1975).

This article undertakes a comprehensive analysis of the 1950 Act, examining its key provisions, constitutional validity, judicial interpretations regarding its scope and application, its interplay with other relevant laws, and its contemporary relevance in the Indian legal landscape. The analysis draws heavily upon landmark judicial pronouncements and statutory provisions to provide a scholarly perspective on this protective legislation.

Legislative Framework and Key Provisions of the 1950 Act

The Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950, lays down a framework to regulate the use of specified emblems and names. Its core provisions are pivotal to understanding its operational ambit.

Section 3: Prohibition of Improper Use

Section 3 is the cornerstone of the Act. It stipulates: "Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, no person shall, except in such cases and under such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government, use, or continue to use, for the purpose of any trade, business, calling or profession, or in the title of any patent, or in any trade mark or design, any name or emblem specified in the Schedule or any colourable imitation thereof without the previous permission of the Central Government or of such officer of Government as may be authorised in this behalf by the Central Government" (Sable Waghire & Company, 1975). The prohibition is thus specifically targeted at usage in a commercial or professional context (Ajitinder Singh v. State Of Punjab And Others, Punjab & Haryana High Court, 2000).

Section 4: Prohibition of Registration of Certain Companies, etc.

Section 4 complements Section 3 by preventing the formal registration of entities or intellectual property that contravene the Act. It provides that no competent authority shall register any company, firm, or other body of persons, or a trademark or design, or grant a patent which bears any name or emblem if its use would contravene Section 3 (Sable Waghire & Company, 1975). This provision directly links the 1950 Act with intellectual property registration regimes.

Section 5: Penalty

Contravention of Section 3 is punishable with a fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, as per Section 5 of the Act (Sable Waghire & Company, 1975). While the monetary penalty may seem modest by current standards, the primary deterrent effect lies in the prohibition itself and the associated legal consequences.

Section 8: Power of the Central Government to Amend the Schedule

Recognizing the evolving nature of symbols and names requiring protection, Section 8 empowers the Central Government to add to or alter the Schedule by notification in the Official Gazette. Such additions or alterations have effect as if enacted by the Act itself (Sable Waghire & Company, 1975). This provides flexibility to the government to respond to new situations requiring protection.

The Schedule

The Schedule to the Act lists the specific names and emblems covered by its prohibitions. As originally enacted, it included items such as the name, emblem, or official seal of the United Nations Organisation, the World Health Organisation, the Indian National Flag, and official seals/emblems of the Government of India and State Governments (Sable Waghire & Company, 1975; Karan Singh v. Jamuna Singh, Allahabad High Court, 1958). The Allahabad High Court in Karan Singh v. Jamuna Singh (1958) noted that not all emblems in the Schedule are necessarily "national emblems of India," citing the UN emblem as an example. The Statement of Objects and Reasons also mentioned the names of Mahatma Gandhi and other national leaders as intended for protection (Sable Waghire & Company, 1975), and the name "Chhatrapati Shivaji" was specifically considered in the Sable Waghire case.

Distinction from The State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005

It is crucial to distinguish the 1950 Act from The State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005. The 2005 Act, along with the State Emblem of India (Regulation of Use) Rules, 2007, specifically governs the use of the "State Emblem of India" (the Lion Capital of Ashoka at Sarnath) as described in its Schedule (Principal, Sabari Ptb Smaraka H.S.S . v. Additional Registering Authority And Others, Kerala High Court, 2019). The 1950 Act has a broader scope, covering a wider array of names and emblems beyond just the official State Emblem of India. Cases like Manoranjan Santosh Roy Petitioner v. Mr. Aamir Khan & Ors. (Bombay High Court, 2016), concerning the use of "SATYAMEV JAYATE" and the "ASHOK CHAKRA," often involve discussions of both Acts. The Madras High Court in S.MUKANCHAND BOTHRA(DECAESED) v. THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT (Madras High Court, 2022) highlighted the comprehensive nature of the 2005 Act and its Rules concerning the National Emblem, while also noting enforcement deficiencies.

Constitutional Validity and Legislative Competence

The constitutional validity of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950, was unequivocally upheld by the Supreme Court of India in Sable Waghire & Company And Others v. Union Of India And Others (1975). The petitioners in this case, who used the trademark "Chhatrapati Shivaji Bidi," challenged the Act as infringing upon their fundamental rights.

The Supreme Court held that the Act falls within the legislative competence of the Parliament. It reasoned that the subject matter pertains to "Patents, Inventions, Designs, Copyright, Trade Marks and Merchandise Marks" (Entry 49, List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution) and, alternatively, could be covered under the residuary powers of the Union (Entry 97, List I). The Court rejected the argument that it fell under "Trade and Commerce" (Entry 26, List II - State List).

Furthermore, the Court found that the restrictions imposed by Sections 3 and 4 of the Act were reasonable and did not violate Articles 14 (Right to Equality) or 19(1)(f) and (g) (Right to property and Right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business) of the Constitution. The Court emphasized the importance of protecting national sentiments and preventing the commercial exploitation of revered names and emblems. It observed:

"Logically proper names are not connotative but have often gathered a content, a halo, around them sometimes or for all times to come. National or international significance gets attached to certain names or institutions over the years or ages and then they belong to the nation or to all nations. Human sentiments and often a deep sense of religiosity pervade through and provide a sacred mantle as it were to the nomenclature." (Sable Waghire & Company, 1975, as quoted in HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVT OF KARNATAKA, Karnataka High Court, 2025).

The Court also upheld the delegation of power to the Central Government under Section 8 to amend the Schedule, deeming it appropriate for dynamically updating the list based on evolving national and international sentiments.

Judicial Interpretation of "Improper Use"

The interpretation of what constitutes "improper use" under Section 3 of the Act has been a subject of judicial scrutiny, particularly the qualifying phrase "for the purpose of any trade, business, calling or profession."

The Punjab & Haryana High Court in Ajitinder Singh v. State Of Punjab And Others (2000) reiterated that Section 3 prohibits the improper use of emblems and names specifically for these commercial or professional purposes. This interpretation was significantly reinforced by the Kerala High Court in Inspector General Of Registration And Another /S In W.P.(C) v. Riyasudheen K. And Others (2022). In this case, the court held that the Act could not be applied to prevent the registration of the "Kerala Deaf Cricket Association" because the association was not related to any trade, business, calling, or profession. The court observed:

"The Scheme of the Act, 1950 would manifest that the Act, 1950 is intended to curb the menace of exploitation of citizens by naming commercial entities in such a manner that the general public would be led to believe that a private commercial entity is one which has the official patronage of the Central or State Government. The Act, 1950 is rather intended to protect the common man than to assert the authority of the State." (Inspector General Of Registration, 2022).

This ruling underscores that the mere use of a name that might appear in the Schedule is not per se prohibited; the context and purpose of the use are critical. The Act aims to prevent the misleading association of private commercial ventures with official bodies or the commercial exploitation of names and symbols holding national or public reverence.

The Madras High Court in Bharat Chamber v. General Manager, District Industries Centre (2012 SCC ONLINE MAD 3928) dealt with a case involving the use of the term "Bharath" in a partnership firm's name. While the judgment primarily focused on procedural aspects and the authority of the District Industries Centre, it implicitly acknowledged that such names could fall within the Act's purview if used improperly for business.

Interplay with Other Laws

The 1950 Act does not operate in isolation and has significant interplay with other statutes, particularly in the realm of intellectual property and penal law.

Trade Marks Act, 1999

Section 4 of the 1950 Act directly prohibits the registration of trademarks that contravene Section 3. This is a crucial intersection with the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Delhi High Court in ARMASUISSE v. THE TRADE MARKS REGISTRY & ANR. (Delhi High Court, 2023) noted that the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950, was specifically incorporated by reference in the Trade Marks Act, making marks which infracted the said Act non-registrable. This contrasts with other international conventions or acts not so specifically incorporated.

The Bombay High Court in Sia Gems And Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai v. Sia Fashion, Mumbai (2003 SCC ONLINE BOM 498) observed that while a proper name can generally be registered as a trademark if stylized, it cannot be registered if it is one of the names specified under the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950. Similarly, the Delhi High Court in CAPITAL VENTURES PVT LTD. v. REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARKS (2025 DHC 3311) considered arguments related to the registration of the mark 'PARLIAMENT' and its potential conflict with the Emblems and Names Act, specifically Entry 17 of its Schedule, which might pertain to the Parliament of India. The court noted arguments that 'PARLIAMENT' is a common noun, not specific to India, and that the Act prohibits the use of a specific name of a given parliament.

While the case of Registrar Of Trade Marks v. Ashok Chandra Rakhit Ltd. (1955 AIR SC 558) primarily dealt with disclaimers for non-distinctive parts of trademarks (the word "Shree"), its underlying principle of preventing undue monopoly over common or significant terms resonates with the objectives of the 1950 Act, which seeks to prevent private appropriation of names and emblems of public or national importance for commercial branding.

Indian Penal Code, 1860

Offences under the 1950 Act are distinct from offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), such as impersonating a public servant (Section 170 IPC) or wearing garb or carrying token used by public servant with fraudulent intent (Section 171 IPC). The Punjab & Haryana High Court in Ajitinder Singh (2000) clarified this distinction. However, situations involving misuse of emblems might also attract IPC provisions depending on the facts. The Madras High Court in S.MUKANCHAND BOTHRA(DECAESED) (2022), while discussing the 2005 Emblem Act, noted a tendency of authorities to register cases under IPC sections like 170 and 171, sometimes overlooking the specific Emblem Acts. The principle of dual prosecution, as affirmed in cases like Institute Of Chartered Accountants Of India v. Vimal Kumar Surana And Another (2011 SCC 1 534), suggests that an individual could potentially be prosecuted under both the 1950 Act and the IPC if the ingredients of the offences are distinct, though Section 5 of the 1950 Act only prescribes a fine.

Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971

The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, deals with overt acts of disrespect or insult to national symbols like the National Flag, the Constitution, and the National Anthem. The 1950 Act, on the other hand, is primarily concerned with the *improper use* of emblems and names, especially in a commercial context, rather than direct acts of insult. The Supreme Court in Union Of India v. Naveen Jindal And Another (2004 SCC 2 510), while discussing the right to fly the National Flag, referred to both the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950, and the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, as statutory restrictions.

Enforcement and Procedural Aspects

The enforcement of the 1950 Act hinges on the requirement of obtaining previous permission from the Central Government (or an authorized officer) for any use covered by Section 3. If a question arises whether an emblem is specified in the Schedule or a colourable imitation thereof, Section 4(2) (as indicated in the Sable Waghire judgment text) provides that the competent authority may refer the question to the Central Government, whose decision shall be final.

Notifications issued by the Central Government under powers conferred by the Act, such as amending the Schedule under Section 8, are considered subordinate legislation and have statutory force (Beeyems Construction Co. v. Govt. Of Kerala, Kerala High Court, 1978, citing Sable Waghire).

Despite the legal framework, concerns about enforcement have been raised. For instance, the Madras High Court in S.MUKANCHAND BOTHRA(DECAESED) (2022), observed a lack of sensitization among authorities regarding the provisions of the (2005) Emblem Act and its rules, a sentiment that could arguably extend to the enforcement of the 1950 Act as well. The relatively small monetary penalty under Section 5 of the 1950 Act might also impact its deterrent effect, though the primary consequence is the prohibition and potential invalidation of registrations or business names.

Challenges and Contemporary Relevance

The 1950 Act continues to be relevant in contemporary India, but it also faces certain challenges. The primary challenge lies in balancing the protection of national symbols and sentiments against the principles of freedom of trade, occupation, and expression. The judiciary has sought to strike this balance by interpreting the Act's prohibitions narrowly, focusing on the commercial or professional purpose of the use and the potential for public deception or offence to national sentiment.

The dynamic nature of society means that new names and emblems may acquire significance over time. The power vested in the Central Government under Section 8 to amend the Schedule is crucial for the Act to remain current. However, the process and criteria for such amendments must be transparent and judicious.

The proliferation of digital media and new forms of commerce presents new avenues for potential misuse of protected emblems and names. Ensuring the Act's applicability and enforcement in these evolving contexts is an ongoing challenge. Furthermore, the existence of multiple related legislations, such as the 2005 State Emblem Act, necessitates clarity in their respective scopes to avoid confusion and ensure effective implementation.

Conclusion

The Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950, serves as a vital legislative instrument for preserving the dignity of and preventing the commercial exploitation of emblems and names that hold national, international, or public significance in India. The Supreme Court's affirmation of its constitutional validity in Sable Waghire & Company (1975) underscored the legitimate state interest in protecting such symbols and the sentiments attached to them.

Judicial interpretations, particularly concerning the scope of "improper use" under Section 3, have clarified that the Act primarily targets commercial or professional exploitation that could mislead the public or offend sentiments. The Act's interplay with trademark law is particularly significant, acting as a bar to the registration of marks that contravene its provisions.

While the Act has an enduring relevance, its effective implementation requires consistent enforcement, periodic review of its Schedule, and continued judicial vigilance to ensure it achieves its protective objectives without unduly hindering legitimate commercial activities or expressive freedoms. As India continues to evolve, the principles enshrined in the 1950 Act will remain crucial in safeguarding the symbols and names that form part of its collective identity and heritage.

References