Section 3. Prohibition of improper use of certain emblems and names
Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, no person shall, except in such cases and under such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government, use or continue to use, for the purpose of any trade, business, calling or profession, or in the title of any patent, or in any trade mark or design, any name or emblem specified in the Schedule or any colourable imitation thereof without the previous permission of the Central Government or such officer of Government as may be authorised in this behalf by the Central Government.
How courts have applied section 3
- The Act is constitutionally valid, and Section 3 imposes only reasonable restrictions under Article 19.1
- The word 'National' is not absolutely prohibited; only improper use suggestive of Government patronage is barred.2
- Entry 17 of the Schedule prohibits the name of the Parliament or State Legislature, not the bare word 'PARLIAMENT'.3,4
- The prohibition applies to calling or profession, irrespective of profit or purpose.5
- Cognizance under Sections 3/4 is barred without previous sanction under Section 6.6,7,8
- Prosecution under the Act was quashed where the offence under the Act was dropped by the investigating officer.9
Read the full overviewShow less· 3 paragraphs
The judgements here show how the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 operates in different contexts. Courts have upheld the Act as constitutionally valid, with the Supreme Court holding it falls within Parliament's competence and that Section 3's restrictions are reasonable under Article 19, given the built-in safeguards and the prohibition only on improper use. The Act also regulates the fundamental right to fly the National Flag, which is a qualified right under Article 19(1)(a), and must be read with fundamental duties; flag burning is not accepted.1,10
A recurring issue is the scope of the prohibition. Courts have held that the word 'National' is not absolutely prohibited, only improper use suggestive of Government patronage is barred. Similarly, Entry 17 of the Schedule prohibits the 'name of the Parliament or the Legislature of any State', not the bare word 'PARLIAMENT' or 'LEGISLATURE'. The prohibition extends beyond trade or business to calling or profession, irrespective of profit or purpose, so a deaf cricket association could not prefix its name with 'Kerala'. A PIL sought implementation of the Act regarding misuse of names like 'Human Rights Commission' on private vehicle number plates.2,3,4,5,11
Several judgements apply the Act in criminal proceedings, often alongside IPC offences and the Information Technology Act. Cognizance under Sections 3/4 of the Act was challenged as contrary to Section 6, which bars prosecution without previous sanction, in multiple quashing petitions. In other cases, the Act was invoked in bail matters where the courts granted relief considering factors like nature of offence, period of incarceration, and completed investigation. Prosecution was quashed where the investigating officer dropped offences under the Act and the charge sheet only proceeded under Section 420 IPC. Some criminal proceedings were disposed of noting duplication of an earlier FIR.6,7,8,12,13,14,9,15
By court
Outcomes
Judgements applying section 3
A citizen was prevented from flying the National Flag at his factory premises on the ground that the Flag Code restricted private display. The Supreme Court held that flying the National Flag respectfully is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a), subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), but that…
DismissedOpenBidi manufacturers using the trade name and pictorial representation of Chhatrapati Shivaji challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 3, 4 and 8 of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 and a 1968 notification adding that name to the Schedule.
DismissedOpenCapital Ventures Pvt Ltd v Registrar of Trade Marks; C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 5/2022, 99/2022, 102/2022, 132/2022; PARLIAMENT mark; PARLIAMENT-formative marks; Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act 1950; Entry 17 Schedule; Section 9(2)(d) Trade Marks Act 1999; Sections 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(d);
Trade mark refusal; absolute grounds for refusal; Section 9(2)(d) Trade Marks Act, 1999; Section 91 appeal; Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950; Entry 17 of the Schedule; Sections 3 and 4 Emblems and Names Act; word PARLIAMENT; PARLIAMENT-formative marks; name of Parliament versus common noun;
Petitioner sought bail in a case alleging he induced a complainant to invest Rs.11 lakhs in a trust on promises of foreign funds. Investigation was complete and no prior cases were pending. The court granted bail subject to bond, sureties, deposit of Rs.1 lakh to the crime number, and reporting conditions.
AllowedOpenDivision Bench held that AICTE lacked competence under Section 23 of the AICTE Act to prohibit private institutions from using words like 'National' in their names, and that Regulation 4.1(b) of the 2020 Regulations could not operate retrospectively on existing institutions.
AllowedOpen
Show 6 more
Karnataka High Court PIL mandamus; enforcement of Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act 1950 and Rules 1982; State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act 2005; State Emblem of India (Regulation of Use) Rules 2007 and 2010; Rule 10 restriction on use of emblem;
AllowedOpenThe Delhi High Court dismissed a bail petition where the petitioner, accused of cheating and misrepresentation, sought release under Cr.P.C. 436-A. The court ruled that the petitioner's history of violating bail conditions, failing a monetary settlement, and absconding warranted continued detention despite the offence…
Accused sought quashing of proceedings for allegedly floating a trust using the Indian Red Cross Society name. Charge sheet retained only Section 420 IPC, dropping Trade Marks and Emblems Act offences; no other trustees were arrayed though the trust had closed before the complaint.
AllowedOpenRegistration of a nonprofit deaf cricket association using “Kerala” as a prefix was held subject to the statutory prohibition on protected names. The court allowed the authorities' appeal, set aside the direction to consider registration without applying that prohibition, and dismissed the writ petition, preserving…
AllowedOpenPIL challenging the wearing of blue beret caps and Ashoka Emblems by Motor Vehicles Department officers. The court directed strict adherence to Rule 406 of Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and noted the government is examining an amendment to incorporate the Ashoka Emblem.
DisposedOpenThe Gauhati High Court disposed of an application for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC. Thesingle judge examined the case diary and concluded there was no material justifying custodial interrogation, leading to the grant of absolute bail.
DisposedOpen
Madras High Court (G.K. Ilanthiraiyan J.) disposed of a Criminal Original Petition under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking quashing of FIR Crime No.2 of 2025 (Inspector of Police, CBCID North Police Station, Villupuram District), registered on the complaint of Sekar against Perumal @ Ayyamperumal for offences under…
DisposedOpenMadras High Court (C. Kumarappan, J.), CRL OP No. 12276 of 2026, decided 19-06-2026: anticipatory bail granted under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to Ayyamperumal apprehending arrest in Crime No.2 of 2025 (CBCID Police Station, Villupuram District) for alleged offences under Sections 420,…
AllowedOpenQuashing application under Section 528 BNSS; Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 — cognizance under Sections 3/4 challenged for absence of previous sanction of Central Government under Section 6 and non-compliance with Section 4(2) reference procedure; B.N.S.
Quashing application under Section 528 BNSS, Allahabad High Court; interim stay of criminal proceedings against applicant Shyamapada Mal; Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act 1950 — prosecution under Sections 3/4 challenged for want of previous sanction of Central Government under Section 6 and…
Section 528 BNSS quashing application; cognizance/summoning order dated 4.11.2025 by Chief Judicial Magistrate Gautam Buddh Nagar; criminal case No. 17140 of 2025; case crime No. 320 of 2025; FIR dated 10.8.2025; P.S. Phase 3 Gautam Buddh Nagar;
Section 528 BNSS quashing petition; Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act 1950 Sections 3/4 and 4; previous sanction of Central Government Section 6; sub-section (2) of Section 4 reference to Central Government; BNS Sections 204, 205, 318, 319, 336, 336(2), 338, 339, 3(5);
Show 4 more
Allahabad High Court interim anticipatory bail order dated March 20, 2026 by Justice Jitendra Kumar Sinha in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 482 BNSS No. 2743 of 2026 (NABAIL No. 2743 of 2026), Arif Nasir Butt v. State of U.P.; Case Crime No.
Allahabad High Court interim anticipatory bail order dated March 20, 2026 by Justice Jitendra Kumar Sinha in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 482 BNSS No. 2743 of 2026 (NABAIL No. 2743 of 2026), Arif Nasir Butt v. State of U.P.; Case Crime No.
Bail granted under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 — Ashish Kumar Singha, accused in Case Crime No. 0320 of 2025 (P.S. Phase-III Noida, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar) for offences under Sections 204, 205, 318, 319, 336, 336(2), 338, 339, 3(5) BNS, 2023, Sections 66C/66D IT Act and Section 3/4 Emblems and Names (EMB) Act — charge…
Bail application dismissed; cheating case (IPC Sections 120(b), 465, 468, 471, 420) with Emblems and Names Prevention of Improper Use Act 1950 Sections 3 & 5; accused posed as RBI official promising conversion of foreign funds; defacto complainant paid Rs.31.81 lakhs;
DismissedOpen