The runway met resistance this time, not applause.
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has landed in the Bombay High Court, accusing luxury fashion house Prada of lifting the design of Maharashtra’s iconic Kolhapuri chappals and slapping a high-fashion price tag on them—without so much as a nod to the generations of Indian artisans behind the craft.
The petition, filed by five lawyers, points to Prada’s recent Milan showcase on June 22, where the brand debuted “toe ring sandals” as part of its Spring/Summer 2026 Men’s Collection. But for those familiar with Indian heritage, the silhouette was no stranger—it bore an uncanny resemblance to the Kolhapuri chappal, a centuries-old, handmade staple now protected as a Geographical Indication (GI) product.
The PIL calls this a textbook case of cultural misappropriation—an act that doesn’t just copy a design but chips away at the cultural and economic foundation of the artisans who have kept this craft alive for over 800 years.
“This is not just footwear. It’s livelihood, identity, and heritage,” the petition argues, invoking Article 21 of the Constitution to assert the artisans’ right to cultural and economic dignity. The petitioners also invoked Article 29(1), reinforcing the constitutional protection for cultural minorities.
Prada’s silence on the sandals’ Indian roots, the PIL alleges, is as problematic as the product itself. The brand reportedly failed to credit the traditional artisans or even mention the heritage it was borrowing from. Meanwhile, the sandals—retailing at over ₹1 lakh—stood stripped of their origin but wrapped in luxury branding.
Kolhapuri chappals, recognized officially with GI status in 2009 and renewed through 2029, are more than mere accessories. Each pair takes weeks to craft using hand-preserved methods passed through generations in Maharashtra’s artisan communities. The plea describes them as “intangible cultural assets” that cannot be co-opted by corporations without consent or compensation.
Section 22 of the Geographical Indications of Goods Act has also been cited, with the petition asserting that Prada’s move erodes the moral and economic rights of GI stakeholders while threatening to dilute the craft’s cultural significance on the global stage.
Among the demands placed before the court: a legal injunction stopping Prada from selling the contested design, a formal public apology, financial compensation to affected artisans, and a government-backed framework to safeguard GI-tagged Indian products from international exploitation.
As the high court prepares to hear the case, the question looms: when heritage becomes haute couture, who really pays the price?
