The Cotton Plaid lungi, dried under the blazing South Indian Sun, once wrapped around the laborer's, toddy tappers and farmers had found its way into Houte Coutre in 1960s The dupatta becomes a Scandinavian Scarf, the Lehenga Morphs into a bohemian skirt,
When Global Fashion borrows from traditional identity, the line between the appreciation and appropriation blur, they are embodiment of community, geography and memory. Indian designs are often stripped of context, meaning and recognition, leaving artisans in the shadow while corporations taking the applaud.
In Milan Spring- Summer Fashion Week,' 2026 Prada has walked straight into the same pattern echoed in the Kolhapuri Chappal, protected by Geographical indication (GI) status in 2009 for a period of 10 yrs i.e. till 2029[1] by artisans from Maharashtra and Karnataka.
India's Geographical Indication (GI) regime was enacted to empower local producers and community by offering them exclusive rights over their culturally rooted- goods.
However, the recent controversy culminated into a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the Bombay High Court, case has reignited a long- standing debate: is enforcement architecture too procedurally rigid to serve its purpose?
The Court, while dismissing the PIL against alleged infringement by the fashion house Prada, reasoned that the petitioners- advocates lacked standing under section 21(a) of the GI Act. The section restricts the right to seek relief for infringement to the “registered proprietor and “authorized users” PIL is not the vessel to seek remedy as it cannot substitute a civil remedy or be converted to civil suits to vindicate private commercial rights.
While the legal position aligns with the text of the law, it arguably undermines the GI Act's purpose in situations where neither the registered proprietor nor the authorized users act[2] , and the GI is visibly being diluted. This legislation presumes a level of awareness, litigation readiness among the artisans, communities or state – owned proprietor bodies (such as LIDKAR and LIDCOM in the present case), assumptions that don't always hold true in practice.
In incongruity, Madhya Pradesh High Court, in Scoth Whiskey Association case[3] adopted a purposive reading of Section 21[4]. Faced with the objection that the authorised user had not been joined as a party, the court held that the word “and” in Section 21[5] should be read disjunctively. Thus, allowing the registered proprietor to pursue the infringement action independently by interpreting the 'and' as an 'or', saving suit from premature dismissal but reaffirmed the Act's protective intent in the face of market deception.
The Gulf between the Madhya Pradesh and Bombay High Court reflects a broader dilemma of Whether Judiciary should strictly interpret statutory language or use constitutional tools to uphold the statues' spirit. The Bombay High Court, instead of outright dismissal, could have drawn catalyst from MERC- records PIL[6], Nesar Ahmed Case[7], and analogous CPC principles[8] to add necessary parties, mid- stream, in ongoing PILs with the purpose of avoiding multiple proceedings[9] and for effective adjudication of the controversy between the parties[10], especially because the alleged infringement involved an international brand and irreparable dilution of the GI.
Furthermore, the Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement includes broader GI protection like traditional crafts and textile. India's absence undermines its ability to secure global protection for its GIs through a unified legal platform. Unlike TRIPS, which offers limited protection and no real cross border enforcement mechanisms. The Geneva Act enables automatic recognition and enforcement of GIs across members states. In cases like the Kolhapuri – Prada controversy, being a member could allow India to proactively assert and defend its traditional products in global court.
India's GI law is structurally sound, but its impact depends on the active enforcement by registered proprietors. The Kolhapuri chappal case underscores a deeper tension between GI community rooted in cultural rights and GI's exclusive legal monopolies. While artisans form the soul of the products' reputation, the law limits the enforcement to select entities, often rendering the community voiceless. A true effective GI framework must bridge this gap by giving legal voice who culturally sustain it, allow decentralised mechanisms that allow them to take action without formal registration as authorised users, dedicated enforcement and oversight body to proactively monitor infringement.
The author is an Advocate practicing at Supreme Court. Views are personal.
[2] Section 2(b) r/w S 17 and 21.
[3] 2023 SCC Online MP 5352,
[4] The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999
[5] The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999
[6] PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.129 OF 2018
[7] Nesar Ahmed v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation 2019 SCC Online Gau 1030
[8] Order 1 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908
[9] Savitri Devi v. District Judge, Gorakhpur and Ors, 1999 (2) SCC 577
[10] Anil Kumar Singh Vs Shiv Nath Mishra (1995) 3 SCC 147