New Delhi: The Supreme Court today declined to entertain a plea challenging the order of the Madras High Court’s division Bench which stayed the single bench’s order restraining Patanjali Ayurveda from using the trademark ‘Coronil’.

A three-judge bench of CJI S.A. Bobde, Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice V. Ramasubramaniun gave liberty to the petitioner, Arudra Engineers, to pursue the case before the Madras High Court and withdraw the case from the apex court.

According to the petitioner firm, it owns the trademark ‘Coronil’ since 1993 and has ‘CORONIL-92 B’ as its registered trademark.

During the hearing today CJI Bobde stated that if the use of word “Coronil” is prevented on the ground that there is some pesticide in that name, it will be terrible for the first product.

A single bench of the Madras High Court, comprising of Justice CV Karthikeyan, had issued an order on August 6 restricting the use trademark ‘Coronil’ by Patanjali Ayurveda and the Divya Yog Mandir Trust as it was exploiting the public’s fear towards Covid-19 by saying that they could cure it. When Patanjali and the Divya Yog Mandir Trust filed an appeal against that order, a division bench of the court ordered an interim stay on the single bench order.

Read Also: Plea in Bombay HC to postpone ‘media trial’ in Rajput death case

The firm Arudra engineers challenged this order before the Supreme Court in the present petition.

The case is listed for hearing before the High Court on September 3.

– India Legal Bureau

The Supreme Court today (July 10) issued notice to the Centre, the State of Kerala and 12 other states in a plea challenging the use of barbaric means to ward off wild animals to ensure a life of dignity to animals.

The three-judge bench of Chief Justice SA Bobde, Justices R. Subhash Reddy and A.S. Bopanna was hearing a petition filed by advocate Shubham Awasthi in the backdrop of the death of a pregnant elephant after she accidentally ate a pineapple filled with crackers in a village nearby Silent Valley National Park, Palakkad, Kerala.

Highlighting the scarcity of staff with the forest department with shortages ranging between 30 percent and 40 percent in different states, the petitioner has urged the court for directions for filling up of vacancies of forest forces in different states for better management of animal welfare and to have effective patrolling and preventive measures in place for the protection of both humans and animals.

The petitioner has also pointed out that the union government in 1992 had launched Project Elephant and had cultivated different varieties of rice in association with Central Rice Research Institute. That particular variety rice was not liked by elephants and was thus left untouched. The petitioner has submitted that similar simpler tools need to be developed to counter the menace of wild boars, nilgais and other animals so that the farmers, villagers and local residents do not use such barbaric means to ward off wild animals.

The petitioner has also submitted that “Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (PCA) is a welfare legislation which has to be construed bearing in mind the purpose and object of the Act and the Directive Principles of State Policy. It is trite law that, in the matters of welfare legislation, the provisions of law should be liberally construed in favour of the weak and infirm. Court also should be vigilant to see that benefits conferred by such remedial and welfare legislation are not defeated by subtle devices.”

It has further been submitted that “Failure to eliminate de jure (formal) and de facto (substantive) abusive treatment meted out to Animals including by non-State actors, either directly or indirectly, violates not only the most basic rights of Animals but also violates their basic dignity as a living being as envisaged in internationally, in our constitution and the guiding principles of every dominant religion or society in India.”

The petitioner has thus urged the Court to declare such practices of usage of snares illegal and unconstitutional, and also the actions of groups, bodies and leaders that permit and propagate such practices must also be declared illegal, unconstitutional, and violative of Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution.

-India Legal Bureau