The Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling, dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the branding of a tobacco product under the name “Shankar Parwati Chhap,” stating that the petitioner must seek legal remedies through proper channels rather than invoking public interest litigation.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra ruled against the plea filed by Adarsh Kumar, observing that there was no valid reason to entertain the PIL under the garb of protecting religious sentiments. The court emphasized that the petitioner could take appropriate legal action if he felt aggrieved.
Background of the Case
The case, filed as PIL No. 491 of 2025, sought judicial intervention to restrain a tobacco manufacturer (respondent no. 4) from marketing beedis under the name “Shankar Parwati Chhap” along with a religious logo. The petitioner, represented by Advocate Ganesh Mani Tripathi, contended that using the names of Hindu deities Shankar and Parvati for selling a tobacco product was offensive to religious sentiments and should be prohibited.
The State of Uttar Pradesh, represented by Advocate A.K. Goyal (A.C.S.C.), opposed the petition, arguing that no clear violation of the law had been demonstrated and that the matter did not warrant judicial intervention through a PIL.
Key Legal Issues Before the Court
The case primarily revolved around two significant legal questions:
Can religious sentiments alone form the basis for a Public Interest Litigation (PIL)?
Does the use of religious names for commercial branding amount to an offense under existing laws?
Court’s Decision and Observations
After reviewing the petition’s averments, the Bench categorically refused to entertain the PIL, holding that such allegations must be pursued through appropriate legal channels rather than being brought as a matter of public interest.
The court, in its ruling, made a critical observation:
“We do not find any reason to entertain the present petition purportedly in public interest, for the allegations made in the petition, the petitioner has to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.”
Based on this reasoning, the High Court dismissed the petition but granted liberty to the petitioner to seek redress through other legal avenues, if permissible under law
