The Supreme Court upheld a Bombay High Court ruling that intellectual property is covered under “property” in Section 15A of the SC/ST Act. The case involved a Dalit couple seeking compensation for the destruction of their intellectual work. The court reaffirmed their right to protection and compensation under the law. This decision strengthens legal safeguards for marginalized communities.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court upheld a Bombay High Court decision that granted a Dalit couple monetary compensation under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) for the destruction of their intellectual property.
In November 2023, the Bombay High Court determined that the term “property” under Section 15A of the SC/ST Act includes intellectual property, thereby entitling the couple to compensation for the loss of data and research materials stored digitally on their laptops, which were destroyed during an unlawful police raid at their rented residence.
A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma upheld the Bombay High Court’s ruling in favor of the couple and dismissed the appeal brought by the Maharashtra government.
The Court stated,
“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,”
Notably, the couple represented themselves during the proceedings in both the High Court and the Supreme Court.
The couple, Dr. Kshipra Kamlesh Uke and Dr. Shiv Shankar Das, both scholars from Jawaharlal Nehru University, had been conducting a personal research project in Nagpur since 2014, focusing on socio-political awareness among the local youth. They collected over 500 survey samples from students across various educational institutions.
While they were out of town, they alleged that the son of their landlord, who belongs to a higher caste, plotted with the Bajajnagar Police Station to break into their residence. During this incident, they claimed that their laptops containing raw research data and survey forms were stolen. Upon their return, they lodged a complaint, prompting an investigation.
The couple asserted that due to the caste-based atrocities perpetrated by the police, they lost all their intellectual property, including the data collected during their research, and sought compensation from the State.
Also Read: Dalit Rape Case| Sentenced to Life Imprisonment for Minor Girl’s Rape in Uttar Pradesh
On March 11, 2022, the High Court directed the National Commission for Scheduled Castes to investigate the couple’s complaint. During this inquiry, the couple presented a ten-point demand, which included compensation for the damage to their intellectual property.
The Commission completed its investigation and recommended to the District Magistrate and local authorities in Nagpur that the couple receive compensation under the SC/ST Act within seven days. Subsequently, the District Magistrate approved a payment of Rs.5 lakhs for various damages but denied relief for the loss of intellectual property.
In response, the petitioners turned to the Bombay High Court, seeking compensation specifically for the damage to their intellectual property.
The State contended that the SC/ST Act does not contain provisions for granting compensation or relief for the loss of intellectual property. The key question before the High Court was whether the couple could receive such compensation under Section 15A of the SC/ST Act, in conjunction with sub-Rules (4) and (5) of Rule 12 of the Atrocities Rules.
According to clause (d) of sub-section (11) of Section 15A, the State has the responsibility to provide relief concerning death, injury, or damage to property. Additionally, Rule 12 of the SC/ST Rules mandates that the District Magistrate, Superintendent of Police, and the Special Court ensure the implementation of the Act’s provisions. Specifically, sub-Rule (4) of Rule 12 requires the District Magistrate to make necessary arrangements and provide relief to victims of caste-based atrocities within seven days.
The couple argued that the term “property” referenced in Section 15A includes intangible assets like data, electronic materials, and intellectual rights associated with such information stored in digital format. Conversely, the State maintained that “damage to property” should be interpreted to refer only to tangible physical assets, such as homes or movable objects, and could not encompass intellectual property or intangible data.
After reviewing the provision, the Court determined that the State’s interpretation was “very narrow.” It pointed out that the law does not define “property,” and in the absence of a definition, it should be understood in its plain and literal sense. Thus, the term “property” should encompass both movable and immovable assets, regardless of whether they are tangible or intangible, and capable of being valued.
The High Court noted,
“Intellectual rights are rights in property even though they lack physical existence and are, therefore, capable of valuation for the purpose of deciding compensation or relief under the provisions of the SC/ST Act.”
Also Read: Dalit Lives Matter|| Supreme Court Orders CBI Inquiry into IIT-Delhi Student Suicides
The Court further stated,
“Considering the meaning of the word ‘property’ from any angle, we firmly believe that a meaningful interpretation of the term in Section 15A of the Act and Rule 12 of the Atrocities Rules does not exclude any forms of property and must be understood in a broad and purposeful context. Therefore, intellectual property in the form of data or electronic material, or any other content in digital form that may have been affected by the crime and atrocities against the petitioners, is capable of valuation for the purpose of granting relief.”
Consequently, the High Court directed the Nagpur District Magistrate/Collector to determine the amount of relief or compensation owed to the couple for the damage to their intellectual property.
The State subsequently appealed this ruling to the Supreme Court, which dismissed the appeal on January 24.