PROTECTING INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE THROUGH GI LAW IN INDIA: A STUDY OF NAGA TRIBAL SHAWLS

AUTHOR – NZANRHONI R EZUNG* & DR JUHI SAXENA**

* STUDENT AT AMITY LAW SCHOOL, LUCKNOW

** ASSISTANT PROFESSOR-II AT AMITY UNIVERSITY LUCKNOW CAMPUS

BEST CITATION – NZANRHONI R EZUNG & DR JUHI SAXENA, PROTECTING INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE THROUGH GI LAW IN INDIA: A STUDY OF NAGA TRIBAL SHAWLS, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (2) OF 2026, PG. 757-766, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344.

ABSTRACT

This paper investigates the socio-legal transformation of Naga tribal shawls from a “visual constitution” of identity to a globally traded commodity protected by the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999. Historically, Naga textiles were governed by a pre-colonial order of “customary sovereignty,” where the right to wear specific motifs was strictly regulated by the “Feast of Merit” and social taboos rather than statutory law. The research explores the friction between this fluid, oral customary law—protected under Article 371A of the Indian Constitution and the codification required by the central GI regime.

Through a critical analysis of the Chakhesang Shawl’s GI registration, the study argues that the legal requirement to submit a written “Statement of Case” forces the “fixation” of dynamic oral traditions, potentially ossifying culture into a static bureaucratic definition. The paper further highlights the structural inequality of the GI framework, evidenced by the abandonment of applications for Ao, Angami, and Sumi shawls due to administrative barriers and the incompatibility of oral history with the registry’s documentation requirements.

Furthermore, the research identifies significant loopholes in the current legal framework, including the failure of GI law to protect visual motifs from “Naga pattern” power-loom imitations and the absence of “moral rights” to prevent cultural appropriation by the fashion industry. Ultimately, the paper concludes that while GI laws provide necessary economic shields, they effectuate a shift from “customary sovereignty” to “statutory sovereignty,” transferring authority from village elders to state-mediated bureaucracies and redefining the shawl from a marker of status to a property asset. The study calls for a sui generis legal framework that incorporates “prior informed consent” to reconcile the preservation of heritage with market integration.

Keyword’s: Geographical Indications (GI), Naga Shawls, Indigenous Knowledge, Customary Law, Traditional Cultural Expressions