Kolhapuri chappal row: Bombay HC rejects plea against Prada, asks 'Where is public interest?'

Soon after facing backlash online, Prada issued a statement, acknowledging that the collection of their toe-ring leather sandals was inspired by Indian artisans. (File photo/Reuters)

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday rejected the public interest litigation (PIL) which sought action against luxury brand Prada for its alleged unauthorised use of a design deceptively similar to Maharashtra's Kolhapuri chappal.

A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V Marne was hearing a PIL which claimed that the Kolhapuri chappal was already protected as a Geographical Indication (GI) under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act and is a ‘cultural symbol’ of Maharashtra, according to PTI.

The court asked the petitioners what their “locus standi” was, and what the “public interest” was. It also asked them why the Leather Industries Development Corporation of Maharashtra (LIDСOМ), which was made a respondent, could not file the suit.

According to the petition, Prada, at its fashion show held in Milan on June 22, had presented 'toe ring sandals' as part of its Spring/Summer 2026 Men’s Collection. The footwear showcased by Prada was reportedly priced at over Rs 1 lakh a pair.

The sandals bore a striking physical resemblance to the traditional Kolhapuri chappal, it was alleged.

Filed by five advocates, the PIL argued that the act amounted to cultural misappropriation and a violation of the rights of artisan communities historically associated with the Kolhapuri chappal.

“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, according to Bar and Bench.

The petitioners, among other prayers, sought direction restraining Prada from commercialising and using the ‘toe ring sandals’. The PIL further sought a public apology from Prada, acknowledging the alleged unauthorised use of the ‘Kolhapuri chappal’, and ensuring that no such use would occur in the future, and to expressly recognise the rights of the Indian artisans’ community.

The plea also sought compensation to the artisans’ community for “reputational and economic damages”.

The bench orally questioned petitioners, “You are not the owner of this Kolhapuri chappal. What is your locus standi and what is the public interest? Any person aggrieved can file a suit. What is the public interest in this?"

"Every person, whosoever is aggrieved by infringement of GI can take action in accordance with law. If you are an aggrieved person, do so. Infringement action cannot be decided in PIL. It will require evidence," the court added.

Senior advocate Ravi Kadam for Prada contested the maintainability of the plea, stating that the petitioners lacked locus standi (legal standing) to file it. He argued that the two leather industries or corporations from Maharashtra and Karnataka are jointly registered proprietors of the GI and have the right to file a suit for infringement in case the word ‘Kolhapuri’ is used in relation to footwear.

After hearing the submissions, the high court said, “PIL is dismissed, reasons to follow.” The detailed order will be made in due course.

(With inputs from PTI)