Sumathi ran quite a few interesting posts on the grant of GI to Tirupati Laddu. In the last post, a regular reader of the blog and a scientist from Kerala, Mr.Praveen Raj, posted in his comment that he had written a letter to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India K.G.Balakrishnan against the grant of the GI, further requesting that the letter be treated as a writ petition.
We now have information that a PIL has been filed before the Madras HC on similar lines by one Mr.Mohanraj, a retired Police Officer and the General Secretary of Jebamani Janata Party (JJP). The PIL contests the grant of a trademark to the image of the presiding deity of the Attukal Temple and the grant of GI to Tirupati Laddu; a stay over the grant of both rights has been prayed for. To read the contents of the PIL, please visit this site.
A news appeared in the ‘Times of India’today(14/10/09) details the arguments before Madras High court. (see below)
PIL questions GI tag to Tirupati laddu
CHENNAI: The grant of geographical indication (GI) tag for Tirupati laddu has run into a legal tangle, with a retired police official filing a writ petition against the bid to equate the prasadam with manufactured commercial commodity’.
Inclusion of Tirupati laddu in the GI Registry would bar the use of the same title for laddus prepared and marketed elsewhere.
The first bench comprising the Chief Justice HL Gokhale and Justice D Murugesan, before which the PIL filed by J Mohanraj came up for admission on Tuesday, has ordered notices to the GI Registry officials and the registrar of trademarks. The matter has been posted to November 2 for further proceedings.
Advocate Manikandan Vathan Chettiar argued that inclusion of a religious offering like laddu under goods’ category for the purpose of GI certificate would tantamount to commercialisation of religious faith. By no stretch of imagination could one equate a place of worship with a business establishment, and devotees could never be termed potential users, as required under the provisions of the Trademarks Act 1999, he said.
As for temple authorities’ claim that a trademark would help prevent unauthorised use of the goods,’ Manikandan said the GI registry can never be deemed to be the custodian of the deity.
Noting that the Lord is universal and omnipotent, counsel said GI tag on temple prasadam is a glaring example of commercialisation of divine affairs. The GI registration aims only at protecting the rights of a community towards a product it creates, he said, adding “it is meant for protecting, preserving and promoting collective community rights as opposed to private monopoly rights which is alien to a democracy.”
He said, “to permit faith-trading and subjugate peoples’ right to religious freedom at the altar of temple-trusts that arm themselves under the cover of trade legislations, is a violation of articles 25 & 26 of the Constitution and a clear travesty of Sections 9 (a) and (d) of the GI Act.”
While the Tirupati Tirumalai Devasthanam counsel sought time to verify whether a similar petition has been filed in the Supreme Court, Mohanraj agreed to withdraw his averments with regard to grant of trademark rights to the deity of Attukal Bhagavathy Amman, as a similar matter has been pending before the Kerala high court.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/PIL-questions-GI-tag-to-Tirupati-laddu/articleshow/5121705.cms
There is a ‘suo motu’ case pending before Kerala High Court for the revocation of ‘Trademark on picture of deity in Attukal Temple, Trivandrum (see below the news in ‘THE HINDU’dated 26/05/09)
Deity’s picture: case against trademark
Kochi: A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court has initiated a suo motu case against the decision of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks to grant certificate of trademark on the picture of the deity of Attukal Devi temple and the description that the temple is a ‘Sabarimala of women.’
The Bench, comprising Chief Justice B.R. Bannurmath and Justice Kurian Joseph, initiated the case on the basis of a petition faxed by Praveen Raj of Thiruvananthapuram. According to him, the temple trust had got the certificate of trademark from the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks on March 9, 2009 to exclusively use the picture and the appellation. The trust had claimed that it would help prevent unauthorised use of the picture and the title.
Petitioner’s version
The petitioner said that the use of religious symbols could not be equated to trade. The trademark certification was intended for commercial advantage. Trademark indicated the source of manufacture or trade origin of the goods or services and thus protected the ‘goodwill’ of the undertaking. It was not fair for the temple trust to call itself a business undertaking and proprietor of a trade.
The action of the temple authorities sent a wrong message that a place of worship was a “business outfit.”
The petition sought to revoke the certificate.
http://www.hindu.com/2009/05/26/stories/2009052655330800.htm
cursorily went thru the pil. well, its a good thing that someone took up the cudgel. however, i wish a better informed n lawyer had drafted it. despite my agreement with the idea of opposing the laddu kinda incidents, i am at pains to see intemperate language (e.g. use of the word ‘shameless’ in Ground E, which says “As for the sobriquet ‘Sabarimala of women’, the 5th respondent shamelessly claims that……”) used in the petition. also, the Grounds that have been taken vis-a-vis tirupati laddu, is not so sound. in this regard, the petitioners may take cues from various posts/comments on the issue at spicyip.
-aditya kant
Is ‘sanctity’ a GI attribute (sanctity is something which cannot be assessed by any of the five sense organs) ?
“In the case of Tirupati laddu, the uniqueness ‘comes from its sanctity’, because it is an offering made within the temple.” –
A recent livemint news report quotes Mr. Muthukumar (attorney for TTD)
Mr. Muthukumar also opines – “All IPR rights are private rights. There’s no power under the GI law in India that restrains a single entity like the TTD from applying. It doesn’t talk about community rights or private rights.”
The points made by Mr. Muthukumar are worth debating.
Let me post below the link of the livemint news
“The heat in the religious sweet”
Samanth Subramanian
http://livemint.com/2009/10/16222409/The-heat-in-the-religious-swee.html?d=2
An interesting PTI News from Tirupati – Pay Rs. 300 for quick darshan (glance) of presiding deity at Tirumala
http://www.ptinews.com/news/340701_TTD-launches-quick–darshan–facility-at-Tirumala
“TTD launches quick ‘darshan’ facility at Tirumala”
Tirupati, Oct 21 (PTI) Tirumala, the abode of Lord Venkateswara, today formally launched the quick ‘darshan’ facility in a bid to provide speedy access for devotees to get a glimpse of the deity as well as curb menace of middlemen.
Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam (TTD) Chairman, D K Adikesavulu Naidu inaugurated the system under which one should buy a Rs 300 ticket to enter the shrine through a separate queue, temple sources said.
The centuries old free ‘darshan’ facility meant for common pilgrims and the Rs 50 ‘darshan’ facility ticket would continue but issuance of Archana Ananthara Darshan (AAD) tickets and Rs 100 ‘darshan’ tickets have been dispensed with, they said.
The quick ‘darshan’ system has been introduced to put a stop to cases of recommendations from influential quarters, to provide speedy access for viewing the deity and also check the middlemen menace, the sources said.
If any infringement of IPR obtained by temple authorities (Attukal or Tirupati) is caused by an action by a Non-Hindu, it is more likely that the battle for remedying it would be fought on the street. (and not in the court)
Government authorities would have lot of difficulties to revoke an IPR granted to religious institutions, as they are also reckoned as property under Article 300A (Vide decision of Supreme court in Civil Appeal NO. 5114 of 2005, May 16, 2008, M/s Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. Vs M/s Super Cassette Industries Ltd)
In our constitutional Scheme…, monopoly is not encouraged. Therefore, no private appropriation of religious symbol shall be allowed.
Nullifying the ‘proprietary rights’ owned by religious establishments is a difficult task. The reference made in this regard by Honourable Supreme Court of India on 31st July, 2009 is very interesting. The bench comprising Justices Dalveer Bhandari and Mukundakam Sharma asked the central government to ensure that there was no unauthorised construction of temples, churches, mosques and gurdwaras on public streets/public places.
“As far as the existing religious places are concerned, we can understand that demolition or removing them may create some law and order problem. But why don’t you consider preventing such constructions in future across the country?” – Mr. Justice Bhandari told the Solicitor-General, Mr. Subramaniam
I have withdrawn my petition from Supreme Court for supporting the PIL in Madras High court. A letter was sent to CJI on 26/10/09 to this effect.