ALL HANDICRAFTS SHOULD GET GI TAGS TO PROTECT IDENTITY - The Daily Guardian
Connect with us

Legally Speaking

ALL HANDICRAFTS SHOULD GET GI TAGS TO PROTECT IDENTITY

Published

on

While advocating for legal protection for handlooms and handicrafts, Rajni Kant, director of the Human Welfare Association stated that “the fabric of India has to be safeguarded.” In terms of Purvanchal’s fabric, our handlooms and handicrafts, whether Gorakhpur terracotta, Banarasi sarees, or Bhadohi carpets, require legal identification and protection. It is about more than just our handloom sector; it is also about our cultural legacy.

Because it is linked to job chances for crores of people in the country through entrepreneurship and startups, legal protection is essential. It occurred as a result of our failure to preserve and defend it. So that there is no confusion, all handicrafts should be labelled with a geographical indication (GI). It is necessary to take steps to resurrect forgotten handicrafts.

Rina Dhaka, a fashion designer, talks about popularising khadi through many channels, including fashion shows and Bollywood films. “We need to make khadi a regular part of our lives, not only on exceptional occasions.” Artists, singers, and other performers get patents, copyrights, and trademarks to protect their work because it is their personal property, but what about community properties such as Lucknow’s chikankari, Gorakhpur’s terracotta work, and others? If not protected, both the artist and the artwork will perish.

INTRODUCTION

Geographical Indications of Goods are described as an attribute of industrial property that relates to a geographical indication designating a nation or a location within that country as the country or place of origin of a product. On September 15, 2003, the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act of 1999 went into effect. This is a general law aimed at providing better protection to India’s indigenous peoples. The Geographical Indications Registry in Chennai is in charge of the registration.

SHOULD HANDICRAFTS GET GI TAGS TO PROTECT IDENTITY?

The Geographical Indicators of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act of 1999 allows handicrafts (including handlooms) to be registered as geographic indications (GI). Handicraft (& Handlooms) are included under Section 2(f) of the Act, which specifies that “items” include agricultural, natural, and manufactured goods, as well as handicraft (& Handlooms) and industrial goods. According to Section 7(3) read with Section 17 of the Act, handicraft artists and weavers can be registered as Authorized Users for registered Geographical Indications. Any person claiming to be the producer of products for which a geographical indication has been registered under section 6 may apply in writing to the Registrar in the appropriate way for authorization to use the geographical indication.

As of July 31, 2016, 1152 GI Authorized Users for handcraft (& Handloom) items had been registered under the Act. Geographical indicators are protected and conserved in a variety of nations and regional systems using a variety of methods, frequently combining two or more methods. A geographical indicator can be protected in three ways: So-called “one-of-a-kind” systems (i.e. special regimes of protection), Techniques focusing on business operations, such as administrative product clearance schemes, using collective or certification marks.

WHAT RIGHTS DOES A GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATION PROVIDE?

A geographical indication right allows those who have the right to use the indicator to prevent it from being used by a third party whose product does not meet the requirements. In places where the Darjeeling geographical indication is protected, for example, producers of Darjeeling tea can prohibit the use of the word “Darjeeling” for tea not cultivated in their tea gardens or prepared according to the requirements outlined in the geographical indicator’s code of practise. However, the holder of a protected geographical indication cannot prevent someone from creating a product using the same procedures as those specified in the indicator’s specifications. A geographical indicator is generally protected by obtaining a right over it.

BENEFITS OF GI TAGS

1. The items are legally protected.

2. Prevents people from using GI tag items without permission.

3. It enables customers to obtain high-quality items with required characteristics while also ensuring their authenticity.

4. Increases the demand for GI tag items on national and international markets, hence promoting the economic prosperity of GI tag manufacturers.

Smriti Irani, the Union Textiles Minister, has stated that the GI designation benefits not just weavers and craftsmen, but also customers. The GI label guarantees that you’ll get the right goods at the right price, straight from the weaver or craftsman. Irani further stressed the significance of raising consumer awareness about the issue. Noting that many of the issues in GI arise after acquiring GI registration, the minister emphasised the need of raising awareness of the significance of GI among all stakeholders in order to improve the law requirements’ execution. Irani declared that a GI assistance desk would be established shortly in every government-run service centre forweavers and craftsmen. 

This would help to close the information gap between the centre and the field, allowing weavers and craftspeople to profit from GI. This is being done to improve governance, as part of the government’s ‘Sabka Saath Sabka Vikaas’ developmental ideology.

She also established a helpline for craftsmen who make handicrafts. The minister further stated that the government has decided to provide a 75% tuition subsidy to children of weavers and artisans from BPL households who wish to pursue NIOS and university education.

Ajay Tamta, Minister of State for Textiles, stated that GI adoption would be extremely beneficial to the handicraft and handloom sectors, particularly in terms of protecting and preserving the rich cultural heritage associated with them, as well as contributing to the social and economic empowerment of handloom weavers and handicraft artisans. Through the supply of necessary information, the artisan helpline would empower the last person on the street.

The government wants to confer geographical indicator (GI) designation on over 75 specific items that are unique to an area, as well as an overall brand identity for handcrafted products from India, in order to combat cheap imitations and boost the brand equity of Indian handicrafts.

A product’s GI defines it as having originated in an area where its quality, reputation, or other characteristics are mostly related to its location. Although handloom items such as Pochampalli sarees and Chanderi silk already enjoy intellectual property rights protection under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, this is the first time handicrafts have been granted GI classification.

To improve their exposure and sales in the global market, the government is progressively attempting to brand items that are unique to India. After losing the patent on Basmati rice in 1999, India realised the realities of IPR challenges with its unique products.

GEOGRAPHICAL VARIATION EXAMPLES

Assam’s iconic golden-yellow Muga silk has been given Geographical Indication designation by Chennai’s GI Registry, bringing joy to the makers. This is the first time an Assamese product has received the famous GI designation. The registration, which was completed on July 20, 2008, was based on the distinctiveness of Muga silk and its traditional heritage, which is intimately intertwined with that of Assam, according to sources. Muga silk is produced by the Assamese silkworm Antheraea assamensis. It has a golden colour and a lustrous texture. With each wash, the shine improves. The mekhela-chador, traditional clothing worn by brides and ladies participating in bihu dances, is also made from it. Muga is a very popular product in Japan, where it is used to make kimonos.

Khadi styling should begin at this stage.This is the method to bring people together, but you won’t find a single family who is. When a top model or a Bollywood celebrity wears khadi, it is certain to be emulated by the younger generation, bringing us closer to our own fabric. The Jamdani craftsmanship of Akbarpur is an example of such disappearing handicrafts. Jamdani cloth was widely used across the country.

The Kashmiri Pashmina received the Geographical Indications of Goods patent, which is similar to intellectual property rights. However, due to the worldwide economic downturn, the gains that were meant to flow from the patent have been washed away. The Kashmiri Pashmina is experiencing the same difficulties as another ancient Kashmir valley product, carpets. As it stands, the Pashmina is suffering from the proliferation of fakes, which is decimating the original since clients are unable to tell the difference between an original and an imitation Pashmina. Similarly to how thousands of artisans are leaving the carpet manufacturing business for greener pastures, traditional weavers are abandoning the pashmina industry as revenue has plummeted, owing to global market recessionary tendencies.

CONCLUSION

Geographical Identification was introduced in the handloom sector to protect product identity, but weavers are experiencing problems with duplication after receiving GI. Geographical Indication may be used by anybody in the region of origin who manufactures the good according to defined criteria; nevertheless, because of its relationship to the place of origin, a GI cannot be issued or licenced to anyone outside that location or who is not a member of the approved producers group.

The Daily Guardian is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@thedailyguardian) and stay updated with the latest headlines.

For the latest news Download The Daily Guardian App.

Legally Speaking

AN ASSOCIATION OF CORPORATE BODIES CAN ESTABLISH A CAPTIVE POWER PLANT PRIMARILY FOR THEIR OWN USE UNDER THE ELECTRICITY ACT: SUPREME COURT

Published

on

The Supreme Court in the case Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. vs Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission observed that a captive power plant primarily for their own use can be established by an association of corporate bodies.

The requirement would be that the consumption of SBIPL and SBMPL together should not be less than 51% of the power generated. Admittedly, the joint consumption by SBIPL and SBMPL is more than 51% and under the provisions of the said Act, the use of electricity by it would be for captive use only even an association of corporate bodies can establish a power plant. Since SBMPL holds 27.6% of the ownership, the requirement of not less than 26% of shares is fulfilled by SBMPL as SBMPL holds 27.6% equity shares in SBPIL.

The fourth proviso to sub­section (2) of Section 42 of the said Act would also reveal that surcharge would not be leviable in case open access is provided to a person who has established a captive generating plant for carrying the electricity to the destination of his own use and under Section 9 of the said Act, could be an individual or a body corporate or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, it is clear that the person will get benefit even an association of corporate bodies can establish a captive power plant it has been seen. The definition of “person” is wide enough to include any company or body corporate or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, or artificial juridical person it should be primarily for the use of the members of such co­operative society or association is the requirement, the Bench observed while referring to the provisions of the Electricity Act.

The BPIL, the respondent contended and supported the impugned judgment that no permission is required from the Commission for supply of electricity for its own use. Thereafter the appellant Company contended that unless SBPIL consumes 51% of the aggregate electricity generated by it, it will not be entitled to get the benefit under Section 9 of the said Act, in an appeal filled before the Apex Court.

An appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity filed by the Company further The Commission held that SBPIL was entitled to supply electricity to its sister concern SBMPL and the same would qualify to be treating as own consumption and within the ambit of Section 9 read with Section 2(8) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Rule 3 of the Electricity Rules, 2005 SBPIL submitted a petition for providing open access and wheeling of power through the transmission system of the Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd (Company) for captive use by SBMPL to the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission, the commission. A Captive Generation Plant is established by SBPIL, and is a sister concern of SBPIL Shri Bajrang Power and I spat Ltd and Shri Bajrang Metallics and Power Ltd, SBMPL.

Continue Reading

Legally Speaking

Where the crime was committed the remission or premature release policy of the state has to be considered: Supreme Court

Published

on

The Supreme Court in the case Radheshyam Bhagwandas Shah, Lala Vakil vs State of Gujarat observed that where the crime was committed has to be considered in the remission or pre­mature release in terms of the policy which is applicable in the State.

While allowing the writ petition the court observed and contended that Once the crime was committed in the State of Gujarat, after the trial been concluded and judgment of conviction came to be passed, all further proceedings have to be 6 considered including remission or pre­mature release in terms of the policy which is applicable in the State of Gujarat where the crime was committed and not the State where the trial stands transferred and concluded for exceptional reasons under the orders of this Court, as the case may be. The court further stated that under Section 432(7) CrPC the appropriate Government can be either the Central or the State Government but there cannot be a concurrent jurisdiction of two State Governments.

the appropriate Government in the ordinary course would be the State of Gujarat. But the case was transferred in exceptional circumstances by this Court for limited purpose for trial and disposal to the neighboring State i.e., the State of Maharashtra by an order dated 06.08.2004. ordinarily, the trial was to be concluded in the same State and in terms of Section 432(7) CrPC as the crime in the instant case was admittedly committed in the State of Gujarat, observed by the Apex Court.

he application for pre­mature release has to be filed in the State of Maharashtra and not in the State of Gujarat, as prayed by the petitioner by judgment impugned dated 17.07.2009 As His petition filed in the High Court of Gujarat was dismissed taking note of Section 432(7) CrPC on the premise that since the trial has been concluded in the State of Maharashtra. Thereafter He had filed his petition for pre­mature release under Sections 433 and 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 stating that he had undergone more than 15 years 4 months of custody.

The bench comprising of Justice Ajay Rastogi and the justice Vikram Nath observed and noted that under Section 432(7) CrPC can be either the Central or the State Government but there cannot be a concurrent jurisdiction of two State Governments of the appropriate Government.

Continue Reading

Legally Speaking

Adopt roster based reservation for preferential candidates as followed by JIPMER: Supreme Court directs all AIIMS institutes

Published

on

The Supreme Court in the case Students Association AIIMS Bhopal And Or’s. v. AllMS and Or’s observed and directed all AIIMS Institutes to adopt roster-based reservation followed by Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Pondicherry (JIPMER) as a plea was filled in the Court seeking direction to AIIMS to have a defined criteria for arriving at seat matrix for institutional preference candidates in INI-CET examination.

the order of the Apex Court in the case AIIMS Students’ Union v. AIIMS And Or’s, would not be applicable if It emphasized that if the roster-based system is implemented the actual roster points for AIIMS would be different from JIPMER as the same would depend on the percentage of seats decided to be allocated to the preferential candidates but It stated that the reservation would be similar to the one adopted by JIPMER AIIMS New Delhi was willing to provide a roster-point based reservation for its institutional preference candidates, by way of an affidavit 20th January 2022 the Bench was apprised that pursuant to a meeting held on 28th June 2020 as prescribed the relevancy:

It shall not be too wide with the one for the general category candidate, that the margin of difference between the qualifying marks for the Institute’s candidate.

The one who has secured marks at the common entrance PG test less than the one secured by any other candidate belonging to reserved category enjoying constitutional protection such as SC, ST etc. cannot be the AIMS graduate the last student to qualify for admission.

appearing on behalf of AIIMS, Advocate, Mr. Dushyant Parashar, New Delhi was asked to get instructions from AIIMS, Bhubaneswar and Jodhpur so that the Court can pass appropriate orders on the next date of hearing. As that apart from AIIMS, Bhubaneswar and AIIMS, Jodhpur, all other AIIMS before the Apex Court has agreed to implement the roster-based reservation system followed by JIPMER Puducherry for their institutional preference candidates, the Court was informed at the last date of hearing.

the petition had been filed seeking direction to AIIMS to disclose how the seats for institutional preference candidates are to be allotted in the view of the same the petitioners claim that in the INI-CET examination conducted in July, 2021, only 4 seats (1.87%) in AIIMS, New Delhi were allotted to institutional preference candidates. Rivetingly, the petitioners note that no seats were allocated to any other AIIMS for admission of institutional preference candidates.

the Bench comprising of Justice L. Nageswara Rao and the justice A.S. Bopanna observed and noted that to record in the order that the roaster system would be applicable from this year. Mr. Parashar informed it that since new software is to be put in place for counselling, it might cause some delay. The bench further stated that the court will order it to apply this year but in case of delay AIMS can come later.

Continue Reading

Legally Speaking

‘The crime committed has to be considered in the remission or premature policy of the state’

Published

on

The Supreme Court in the case Radheshyam Bhagwandas Shah, Lala Vakil vs State of Gujarat observed that where the crime was committed has to be considered in the remission which is applicable in the State and the pre­mature release in terms of the policy

The Court noted while hearing the writ petition that in terms of the policy which is applicable in the State of Gujarat where the crime was committed and not the State where the trial stands transferred and concluded for exceptional reasons under the orders of this Court once the crime was committed in the State of Gujarat, after the trial been concluded and judgment of conviction came to be passed, all further proceedings have to be 6 considered including remission or pre­mature release, as the case may be, in the instance case. under Section 432(7) CrPC, there cannot be a concurrent jurisdiction of two State Governments, can be either the Central or the State Government of the appropriate government.

in terms of Section 432(7) CrPC, the trial was to be concluded in the same State and ordinarily in the State of Gujrat the crime in the instant case was admittedly committed. by an order 06.08.2004., the case was transferred in exceptional circumstances by this Court for limited purpose for trial and disposal to the neighbouring State i.e., the State of Maharashtra, observed by the bench of Apex Court.

As mentioned by the petitioner in the plea that by judgment impugned dated 17.07.2019., the application for pre­mature release has to be filed in the State of Maharashtra and not in the State of Gujarat and His petition filed in the High Court of Gujarat was dismissed taking note of Section 432(7) CrPC on the premise that since the trial has been concluded in the State of Maharashtra. under Sections 433 and 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petition was filled by the petitioner for premature release further the petitioner stated that that he had undergone under the custody of more than 15 years 4 months.

Section 302, 376(2) (e) (g) and reading it with Section 149 IPC, Shah was found guilty for the offence, the offence committed by him in the State of Gujrat.

The bench comprising of Justice Ajay Rastogi and the justice Vikram Nath observed that under Section 432(7) CrPC can be either the Central or the State Government but there cannot be a concurrent jurisdiction of two State Governments of that appropriate government.

The bench comprising of Justice Ajay Rastogi and the justice Vikram Nath observed that under Section 432(7) CrPC can be either the Central or the State Government but there cannot be a concurrent jurisdiction of two State Governments of that appropriate government.

Continue Reading

Legally Speaking

Seeking reduction of qualifying the percentile for admission in ayurveda course: A plea in Supreme Court

Published

on

The Supreme Court in the Case Amit Kumar v UOI & Or’s observed in Ayurveda course in view of large number of vacancies and for seeking reduction of qualifying percentile for admission, an ayurveda aspirant who appeared in NEET 2021 has approached the Court.

the court had observed that lowering the minimum marks and reducing the percentile for admission to first year BDS Course would not amount to lowing the standards of Education and further the Court directed to lower the percentile mark by 10 percentiles for admission in first year of BDS Course for academic year 2020-2021, with regards to substantive the contentions made by the petitioner by referring the judgement passed in the case in Harshit Agarwal & Or’s v Union of India.

the percentile may also be reduced for Ayurveda programme enabling the Petitioner to take admissions then If percentile is being reduced/considered for reduction for BDS course was further stated by the petitioner in the plea, while referring to an order dated 04.29.2022. Thereafter the top Court had asked Centre to consider lowering the percentile for BDS Courses.

Seeking the Centre’s response in a plea by filing a counter affidavit, noted by the Top Court specifying the above-mentioned information:

after deducting the admission granted for MBBS Courses (BDS Courses), the total number of Candidates.

in All India Quota and State Quota, the totals number of vacant seats.

in government colleges on one hand & private/deemed colleges on the other hand, the number of seats which are remaining.

the petition was filed through AOR Neeraj Shekhar and for the petitioner Advocate Shivam Singh appeared.

Continue Reading

Legally Speaking

Bank case rejected by Supreme Court against farmer

Published

on

The Supreme Court in the case Bank of Maharashtra & Or’s v Mohanlal Patidar observed an order given by the High Courts of directing the bank the OTS proposal given by a farmer who had availed a loan from the bank, the court further pulled up the Bank of Maharashtra for challenging the order.

The Bank shall complete remaining formalities and provide all consequential benefits flowing therefrom to the petitioners, the court further stated that it is needless to emphasize The OTS proposal given by the petitioners in both the cases shall be accepted by the Bank and ‘sanction letters’ be issued forthwith, the court allowed the petitioner plea.

The petitioner not only promptly challenged the said order, it is noteworthy that petitioner never acceded to the unilateral decision dated 25th August 2021 and even otherwise the letter dated 25th August 2021 is held to be illegal by us, clause-7 of policy cannot take away the fruits of OTS benefits, within two months from the date of issuance of order dated 22th September 2021, the petitioner filled the instant petition and further the court directed we are unable to give stamp of approval to the impugned orders and action of the Bank, observed by the bench comprising of Justice Sujoy Paul and the justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal while setting aside the impugned orders of the bank.

In an order dated 03.09.2021 it was stated and it showed that the petitioner was required to pay minimum 10% of the OTS amount within stipulated time and that he had deposited Rs.35,00,000/- out of Rs.36,50,000/- within the stipulated time, it was argued before the court by the counsel.

As full and final settlement of the dues, he will be required to deposit Rs.50.50 lakhs as he was informed by the Asset Recovery Branch of the Bank.

Whole law comes into place when a matter of farmers come as the down payment were also accepted and it was further stated by the bench in an oral remark You don’t file cases against the ones who loot 1000s of crores.

The respondent had obtained a loan and intended to pay it in terms of a One Time Settlement which was quantified as Rs 3650000/-. in furtherance thereof the respondent had deposited Rs 35,00,000 with the bank, in the above-mentioned matter.

The bank had miserably failed to accept the same and on the contrary, decided to enhance the compromise amount to Rs.50.50 lakhs unilaterally which was contrary to the OTS scheme, contended by the counsel further the counsel stated that the bank had miserably failed to accept the same and on the contrary, decided to enhance the compromise amount to Rs.50.50 lakhs unilaterally which was contrary to the OTS scheme.

The bench comprising of Justice DY Chandrachud and the justice Surya Kant observed and remarked while dismissing the plea assailing Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order dated 02.21.2022 Such a litigation in Supreme Court will spoil the families of farmers financially, Go after bigger fish.

Continue Reading

Trending