The Bombay High Court on Wednesday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) petition that sought action against Italian luxury fashion house Prada for allegedly copying the design of Maharashtra's iconic Kolhapuri Chappals without authorisation.
A bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne rejected the PIL after questioning the “locus” and statutory right of the five advocates who had filed it, observing that they were not directly affected parties or the registered proprietors of the Geographical Indication (GI) tagged product.
“You are not the owner of this Kolhapuri chappal. What is your locus and what is the public interest? Any person aggrieved can file a suit. What is the public interest in this,” the court asked.
Following the hearing of both the petitioners’ lawyers and Prada’s representatives, the bench said, “The Petition is dismissed, reasons to follow.”
The PIL, filed by five advocates, argued that Prada had showcased 'toe ring sandals' as part of its Spring/Summer 2026 Men’s Collection at its fashion show held in Milan on June 22. Priced at over ₹1 lakh per pair, the sandals reportedly bore a striking resemblance to the traditional Kolhapuri Chappal. The petitioners contended that this amounted to cultural misappropriation and violated the rights of artisan communities associated with the centuries-old craft.
“This action of PRADA infringes the fundamental right to life (Article 21), which includes the right to livelihood and cultural identity of the Kolhapuri Chappal artisan communities,” the plea stated.
The petition alleged that Prada neither acknowledged the Indian origins of the footwear nor credited the artisans who have preserved the craft for generations. It argued that the footwear, officially granted GI status on May 4, 2009, represents a traditional art form involving specialised skills and time-intensive processes, typically requiring four to five weeks to produce a single pair.
The plea cited Section 22 of the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, claiming Prada’s actions undermined the “moral and economic rights of the artisans” and eroded the cultural identity embedded in the craft. The petitioners also cited Article 29(1) of the Constitution, asserting that Prada’s actions infringed upon the rights of communities to conserve their distinct culture.
The petitioners had sought a court order restraining Prada from commercialising the footwear, demanded a public apology, and sought compensation for alleged reputational and economic damages caused to traditional artisans.
However, the High Court pointed out that the registered proprietor of the GI Tag was the rightful party to seek legal remedy, noting that the advocates lacked standing to initiate such action. It concluded by dismissing the PIL and indicating that a detailed order with reasons would follow.
With inputs from agencies
