Beyond Commercial Value: Reimagining GI Protection for Tribal Designs through the Lens of Indigenous Sovereignty-A Comparative Study of India and Australia

Abstract

Imagine a sacred tribal motif, painstakingly passed down through generations, now mass-printed on luxury handbags without consent, context, or credit. Across continents, the commercialization of tribal art has turned ancestral wisdom into market commodities, often stripping indigenous communities of their cultural agency. This research interrogates the limitations of India’s Geographical Indications (GI) law in safeguarding tribal designs, shifting the conversation from mere economic branding to indigenous sovereignty and legal dignity. By undertaking a comparative analysis with Australia’s evolving Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property (ICIP) frameworks, this paper argues that India’s GI regime, despite offering some protection, remains structurally unfit to recognize the cultural, spiritual, and communal dimensions of tribal creativity. Through doctrinal review, policy analysis, and landmark case studies, including Milpurrurru v Indofurn Pty Ltd in Australia and the GI registrations of Warli and Sohrai paintings in India, the paper highlights how Australia’s inclusion of FPIC (Free, Prior and Informed Consent), collective custodianship, and remedies for cultural harm present a more holistic model of protection. The paper concludes by proposing a sui generis rights-based framework for India, rooted in constitutional morality, that recognises tribal communities not merely as producers of art but as sovereign custodians of living heritage.