1975 (3) TMI 152 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Upholds Emblems Act 1950 Validity

Sable Waghire & Company and Ors Versus The Union of India (UOI) and Ors.

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950, along with its related Notification and ... - Issues Involved:1. Legislative Competence of the Parliament2. Constitutionality of Sections 3, 4, and 8 of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 19503. Alleged Violation of Fundamental Rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution4. Validity of the Notification under Section 8 of the Act5. Validity of the Notice by the Joint Registrar of Trade MarksIssue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legislative Competence of the Parliament:The petitioners challenged the validity of the Act, arguing that it fell within the domain of 'trade and commerce' under Entry 26 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, thus outside the Parliament's legislative competence. The Court, however, concluded that the Act's pith and substance were about preserving the sanctity of names and emblems of national and international significance, not trade and commerce. Therefore, Entry 49 of List I concerning 'Patents, inventions, designs, copyright, trade marks and merchandise marks' was applicable. Alternatively, the Court held that the residuary Entry 97 of List I could cover the Act's subject matter, thus affirming the Parliament's legislative competence.2. Constitutionality of Sections 3, 4, and 8 of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950:The petitioners argued that Sections 3, 4, and 8 conferred arbitrary powers on the Central Government, leading to potential discrimination and unreasonable restrictions on fundamental rights. The Court found that the Act's preamble, objects, and reasons provided sufficient guidance for the exercise of these powers. The prohibition of improper use of names and emblems was deemed necessary to prevent misuse and maintain national sanctity. The Court also noted that Section 8's delegation of power to the Central Government to amend the Schedule was appropriate and did not constitute excessive delegation.3. Alleged Violation of Fundamental Rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution:The petitioners contended that the Act violated their rights to equality and to practice any profession or carry on any occupation, trade, or business. The Court held that the Act did not interfere with the petitioners' right to trade in bidis but merely regulated the use of specific names and emblems. Section 3 allowed the Central Government to grant time for affected persons to adjust their business, thus mitigating any hardship. The restrictions imposed by the Act were deemed reasonable and regulatory, not violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) and (g).4. Validity of the Notification under Section 8 of the Act:The petitioners argued that the Notification under Section 8 was not published in the President's name and was issued by an unauthorized Under Secretary. The Court clarified that the Notification was a piece of subordinate legislation, not an executive order, and was duly published in the Gazette of India over the Under Secretary's signature, who was authorized for the purpose. Therefore, there was no violation of Article 77.5. Validity of the Notice by the Joint Registrar of Trade Marks:The petitioners challenged the Notice by the Joint Registrar of Trade Marks, which proposed to rectify the Register by expunging the trade marks containing the name or emblem of Chhatrapati Shivaji. Since the Act and the impugned provisions were held constitutionally valid, the objection to the Registrar's Notice was dismissed.Conclusion:The petitions were dismissed, and the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950, and the related Notification and Notice. The Court found no merit in the arguments concerning legislative competence, violation of fundamental rights, excessive delegation of power, or procedural irregularities. There was no order as to costs.