Using Name Of A State For Non-Commercial Establishments Prohibited: Kerala High Court Overrules Single Bench Order

The Kerala High Court recently held that a private organisation cannot use the name of a State in its title, irrespective of the profit or purpose for which it is constituted, even if it is a non-commercial organisation going by the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 and the corresponding Rules. 

A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly clarified that the use of name of a particular State is prohibited not only for the purpose of trade or business but also for calling or profession. 

"Going through the statutory provisions, it is clear that it is not only for the purpose of trade or business the use of name of a particular State is prohibited, but also for calling or profession, which is a very comprehensive and expansive term to contain the use of the name for any establishment, irrespective of its profit or purpose for which it is constituted."

The Court added that the intention and purport of the Act are clear from its statement of objects and reasons - to prohibit the improper use of certain emblems and names, so as to deceive the public as if to appear that it is an organisation belonging to the State.

"When we look at the purpose for which the Act is constituted, we are of the undoubted opinion that the name "Kerala" made as prefix to the Deaf Cricket Association cannot be used, in view of the prohibitions contained in the Act, 1950 and Rules, 1982."

The Court was adjudicating upon an appeal challenging the order of a Single Judge which ruled that an association formed by private individuals cannot be prevented from naming after 'Kerala' or 'Bharat' or 'India' under the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 if their activities are not related to any trade or business.

The impugned order came in a petition moved by the President of an unregistered Association formed to promote cricket among the deaf youth in Kerala. Since their non-registration caused difficulties in sending teams to Inter-State and National level Competitions, the petitioners decided to register it as 'Kerala Deaf Cricket Association'.

Accordingly, they submitted an application to register the Association under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. However, the District Registrar (General) refused to accept the application under a mistaken belief that the terms "Kerala" or "India" cannot be used for the registration of any Association. Aggrieved by the same, they had approached the Single Judge.

The Single Judge allowed the petition observing that the prohibition of any name or emblem specified in the Schedule to the Actis only on the use of such name or emblem for the purpose of any trade, business, calling or profession.

The appellants argued that the name of an association should not bear any resemblance to the Central/State Government, in view of the provisions contained in the Act and also going by various Government orders and circulars issued in that regard.

It was also contended that the Single Judge has wrongly interpreted the provisions of Act while deciding the case and also omitted to take note of the precedents in a judgment, wherein this Division Bench had given clear directives to the registering authorities not to allow private bodies to bear an impression of a statutory body.

The Court noted that Section 4 of the Act makes it clear that even other body of persons, which bears any name of a State, is prohibited from registration. Similarly, Entry 4 of the Schedule also states that the name, emblem or official seal of the Government of India or of any State shall not be used.

"Therefore, it is clear that the use of the word "Kerala", which is the name of a State, is something which is prohibited in terms of Section 3 of the Act, 1950 read with the Entries 4 and 7 of the Schedule." 

As such, the appeal was allowed and the directions issued in the impugned judgment were set aside. However, it was clarified that this judgment will not stand in the way of the party respondents seeking registration before the competent authority, in accordance with law.

Senior Government Pleader V. Tek Chand appeared for the appellants while Advocates P. Mohamed Sabah and Saipooja appeared for the respondents in the matter. 

Case Title: Inspector General of Registration & Anr v. Riyasudheen K & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 338

Click Here To Read/Download The Order