“I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.”
– Galileo Galilee
Introduction
This is the winning tale of a resilient Dalit couple from the land of Mahrathi (Maharashtra) who have created history by fighting for justice, not just for themselves but for the larger sect of the society facing atrocities even in the most modern twenty-first century. Dr. Kshipra Kamlesh Uke and Dr. Shiv Shankar Das’s legal battle has set a historical precedent, affirming that intellectual property holds the same legal significance as any movable property and is thus eligible for compensation under the law. The couple secured a favourable decree on November 10, 2023, when the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court ruled in their favour, directing the Maharashtra government to compensate them for the damages incurred. They had sought relief for the assessment of loss or damage to their intellectual property under Rule 12(4) and (5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and its accompanying Rules, 1995. The court, in its ruling, emphasized that the term “property” must be interpreted broadly and purposefully within the framework of Section 15A (11)d of the Act and Rule 12 of the Atrocities Rules. It held that intellectual property, whether in the form of data, electronic material, or any digital content, constitutes property under the law and is, therefore, subject to legal protection and compensation in cases of offences or atrocities committed against the petitioners. On January 24, 2025, the Supreme Court of India dismissed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the Maharashtra government, thereby affirming the Bombay High Court’s landmark decision. This ruling sets a crucial legal precedent by explicitly recognizing intellectual property damage as compensable under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. The case was adjudicated by a bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, who came to the conclusion that “we have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length. We do not find any merit in the Special Leave Petition. Hence, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed.”
Background
The lives of two Scheduled Caste researchers, Dr. Kshipra Kamlesh Uke and Dr. Shiv Shankar Das, both Ph.D. holders from Jawaharlal Nehru University, took an unexpected turn on September 8, 2018. In their absence, a meticulously planned theft was allegedly orchestrated by their landlord at their residence in the heart of Nagpur city. Among the stolen items were their most invaluable academic assets, extensive research data stored on laptops and pen drives, around 5,000 survey samples, academic publications, and certificates, representing years of dedication and scholarly effort. The core issue underlying this conflict, as stated by the couple in their official statement to The Mooknayak, was the extreme atrocities and discriminatory treatment they faced. They asserted that the hostility directed at them was primarily rooted in their caste identity, creating an environment of systemic bias and persecution. To understand the legal impact of this case, we must examine the battle fought in the court of justice and the arguments raised.
Critical Analysis of Their Legal Battle
The researchers lodged a complaint, prompting an investigation into the matter. They contended that the theft and destruction of their intellectual property constituted a caste-based atrocity under the provisions of the Atrocities Act and its accompanying rules. Seeking intervention and remedial action, they approached the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC). The NCSC issued recommendations to the District Magistrate of Nagpur. These included directions for compensation and the formation of a Special Investigating Team (SIT) to further investigate the incident. However, due to the Commission’s initial inaction, they filed a petition (No. 647/2021) before the High Court, requesting judicial intervention.
In its judgment dated March 11, 2022, the Court directed the NCSC to expedite and complete the inquiry into their complaint. Following this directive, the Commission conducted the investigation, during which the petitioners submitted a Ten-Point Demand outlining various forms of relief and compensation for the losses incurred seeking various reliefs/compensation for loss caused to them due to the damage to their intellectual property in terms of Rule 12(4), (5) and (7) of the said Rules read with Section 15A (11) (d) of the Atrocities Act. Rule 12 deals with Measures to be taken by the District Administration. 12(4) mandates, The District Magistrate or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate shall make arrangements for providing immediate relief in cash or in kind or both to the victims of atrocity, their family members and dependants according to the scale as in the Schedule annexed to these rules (Annexure – I read with Annexure –II). Section 15A (11) endows duty upon the concerned state to provide relief in respect of death or injury or damage to property.
Based on the Commission’s recommendations, the Nagpur District Magistrate granted compensation under Rule 12(4) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules. Shiv Shankar Das and Kshipra Uke were awarded ₹1 lakh each under Clauses 35 and 36E of the Schedule, respectively. Additionally, ₹3 lakh was sanctioned following the inclusion of Section 3(2) (va) of the Atrocities Act in the charge sheet. These payments were disbursed in instalments, with the final transfer made on May 12, 2022. However, the authorities rejected the petitioners’ Ten-Point Demand, asserting that intellectual property losses could not be quantified or compensated under the Atrocities Act.
Subsequently, the researchers filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 759 of 2022 before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court. In their petition, they sought the full implementation of the recommendations made by the National Commission for Scheduled Castes. They also requested the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to finalize the investigation and submit a charge sheet under Section 173 of the CrPC. Additionally, they sought compensation for the damages to their property, including the destruction of their intellectual property.
The petitioners argued that the term “property” under Section 15A(11)(d) of the Atrocities Act should be interpreted expansively to include intangible assets like intellectual property. They highlighted the irreplaceable nature of their research data and the considerable professional loss they had endured due to its theft and destruction. Highlighting that the refusal of the State Government and the District Magistrate even attempt at evaluating the compensation/relief due to them for loss of property, amounted to abdicating their duty under the aforementioned provisions of the Act and Rules. Conversely, the state (respondents) had submitted that the words “damage to property” contained in the aforesaid provisions are required to be interpreted to mean tangible and physical property such as a house or movable items and cannot be interpreted to mean intellectual property or data in intangible form. However, The National Commission for Scheduled Castes, after conducting an inquiry, recommended the consideration of the petitioners’ demands and the provision of compensation within a stipulated timeframe. Following these recommendations, an SIT was formed, and a chargesheet was filed under various sections of the IPC and the Atrocities Act. Additionally, partial compensation amounting to Rs. 4,50,000 out of a sanctioned sum of Rs. 6,00,000 was disbursed to the researchers. Though, the authorities refused to compensate for the intellectual property loss, citing the absence of legal provisions for such relief.
The Bombay High Court observed that the Act aims to hold the State and its designated authorities accountable for preventing atrocities and ensuring compensation for losses suffered by victims under Section 3 of the Act.
Intellectual property is well recognized within the ambit of the Atrocities Act 1989
The high court observed that a plain reading of Section 15A(11)(d) of the Atrocities Act mandates the State to provide relief for death, injury, or property damage. Since the Act does not define “property,” it must be interpreted broadly to encompass both tangible and intangible assets. This includes incorporeal property such as patents, copyrights, and designs, which, despite lacking physical existence, hold legal and economic value. Intellectual property rights, being a form of property, are thus subject to valuation and eligible for compensation under the Act. The Court referenced legal definitions of property and relevant IPC provisions to establish that intellectual property holds quantifiable value and constitutes a compensable loss. The High Court emphasized that the term “property” must be interpreted broadly to include both tangible and intangible assets. Citing legal definitions, including John Salmond’s jurisprudential perspective, the court noted that “in its widest sense, property includes all a person’s legal rights, of whatever description. A man’s property is all that is his in law.” This interpretation reinforced the recognition of intellectual and incorporeal assets as part of an individual’s property rights.
Emphasizing the Atrocities Act’s objective of providing comprehensive relief and rehabilitation to victims of caste-based atrocities, the High Court ruled that restricting the definition of property to tangible assets would contradict the Act’s remedial intent. It also cited Rule 12(7) of the Atrocities Rules, which obligates the District Magistrate to report on the relief provided to victims and reaffirmed that the Special Court has the authority to enhance compensation if deemed insufficient. The Court instructed the District Magistrate to conduct a detailed investigation into the researchers’ ten-point compensation demand and assess the extent of their intellectual property loss. It further mandated the Magistrate to determine appropriate compensation, ensuring that the evaluation was completed within three months. Additionally, the Magistrate was required to submit a comprehensive report on the findings and relief measures to the Special Court. This decision was subsequently challenged by the Maharashtra government in the Supreme Court.
The Maharashtra government contested this ruling by filing a Special Leave Petition in (Principal Secretary Government of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Kshipra Kamlesh Uke & Ors) in the Supreme Court, challenging the broad interpretation of property and the provision of compensation for intellectual property loss. However, the Supreme Court’s rejection of the petition upheld the High Court’s progressive interpretation. By refusing to entertain the state’s appeal, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the High Court’s position, underscoring the importance of protecting intellectual property rights and ensuring adequate remedies under anti-atrocity laws. This decision marks a crucial advancement in the recognition and safeguarding of intellectual property, particularly for researchers from marginalized communities, reinforcing their right to seek redress for such losses.
Conclusion
This legal pursuit is most welcoming, highly progressive, and is of great importance in today’s times. Such judicial pronouncements instil confidence and optimism in the marginalised communities and indeed have a larger positive societal implication.
Drawing from one of the most foundational jurisprudential theories of Intellectual Property Rights proposed by John Locke (the rights-based approach) his philosophy asserts that “the fruits of a man’s labour belong to him.” In this light, recognizing and respecting intellectual effort, time, and dedication is fundamental to a just and evolved society. The failure to do so reflects a regressive social outlook, undermining both individual rights and collective ethical progress.
Authored by: Mr. Achyuth B Nandan
He is currently pursuing LL.M IPR at the Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur (IIT KGP).
Leave a Reply