The PRADA PIL Controversy: Kolhapuri Chappals vs High Fashion

FAQs

1. What was the issue in the PIL against PRADA?

The PIL—Prof. Adv. Ganesh S. Hingmire v. PRADA Group (2025)—alleged that PRADA’s “toe ring sandals,” showcased in its Milan Spring/Summer 2026 collection, closely resembled the GI-tagged Kolhapuri Chappals. The petitioners claimed this amounted to unauthorised commercial use and cultural appropriation, potentially violating India’s Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999.

2. Why was the PIL dismissed by the Bombay High Court?

The Court held that only the registered proprietors of the GI—Rohidas Leather Industries, LIDCOM, and LIDKAR—had the statutory right to seek legal remedies through a civil suit, not through a Public Interest Litigation. The PIL under Article 226 was therefore ruled not maintainable for enforcing proprietary GI rights.

3. What is a Geographical Indication (GI) under Indian law?

A Geographical Indication (GI) is a sign used on products that have a specific geographical origin and possess qualities or a reputation due to that origin. Under the Geographical Indications of Goods Act, 1999, only registered users or proprietors can enforce rights under Sections 21 and 22 of the Act.

4. How is the Constitution relevant in this case?

The petitioners invoked Articles 21 (Right to life and livelihood), 29 (Cultural rights), and 51A(f) (Fundamental duty to preserve India’s heritage). However, the Court held that GI infringement is a statutory issue and cannot be enforced through constitutional writ jurisdiction when alternate civil remedies exist.

5. What did the Court say about the role of PIL in such matters?

The Court clarified that Public Interest Litigations (PILs) are not the proper mechanism to assert proprietary or statutory rights, especially where the law provides a clear civil remedy to authorised users or government bodies. PILs should address broader public interest, not private commercial rights.

6. What is the legal course now available for the GI proprietors?

If LIDCOM or LIDKAR believe PRADA has violated their GI rights, they can file a civil suit under Section 22 of the GI Act for infringement and seek injunctions or damages. The dismissal of the PIL does not bar them from doing so.

7. What precedent did the Court rely on?

The Court cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in Jaipur Shahar Hindu Vikas Samiti v. State of Rajasthan (2014), which emphasised that PILs should not be used to pursue personal or proprietary grievances when proper legal remedies are available.

8. Could the petitioner not file this PIL as a public-spirited citizen?

The Court observed that both GI proprietors are government-backed bodies, fully capable of protecting artisans’ interests. Since they were neither inactive nor incapable, there was no justification for a third party to bypass them via a PIL.

9. What does this case mean for GI enforcement in India?

The judgment clarifies jurisdictional boundaries: GI violations must be handled through civil suits by authorised GI owners, not PILs. It reinforces procedural discipline while safeguarding legitimate avenues for redressal by rightful stakeholders.