For more intellectual property updates follow our WHATSAPP CHANNEL and SUNS LEGAL | LinkedIn

Written by Keerthana M, Advocate, and Verified by Sunil Jose, Managing Attorney, Suns Legal.

Principal Secretary Government of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Kshipra Kamlesh Uke & Ors. [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 49832/2024]

Dr. Kshipra Kamlesh Uke and Dr. Shiv Shankar Das will be remembered as the heroic duo who fought against an entire bureaucratic system. For them, it wasn’t about creating history but rather a daring journey where they never gave up on their dreams and fought for their rights against all odds. The Honourable Supreme Court recently ruled in their favor, entitling them to receive compensation for the damage caused to their intellectual property under the provisions of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“the Act”).

How It Began

Dr. Kshipra Kamlesh Uke and Dr. Shiv Shankar Das (“Petitioners”) were engaged in a self-funded research project focusing on the socio-political awareness of the youth of Nagpur since 2014. These Dalit researchers lived in a rented house within a Brahmin community. In 2018, while they were out of town, the landlord’s son, with the knowledge of police officers, broke into their house, destroyed their belongings, and stole their laptops, pen drives, hard drives, and other research data. The petitioners filed a complaint, and an investigation was launched.

The aggrieved approached the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (“Commission”), which makes necessary recommendations to the State Government and the District Magistrate to provide relief according to the provisions of the Act and the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (“Rules”). However, no action was taken by the Commission. The petitioners then filed a criminal writ petition in the Bombay High Court, and the Commission was directed to complete the inquiry on the petitioners’ complaint.

During the inquiry, the petitioners submitted a ten-point demand seeking relief for the loss caused by the damage to their intellectual property, as per Rule 12(4), (5), and (7) of the said Rules read with Section 15A (11) (d) of the Act. The Commission completed the inquiry and sent the following recommendations to the District Magistrate: (i) consider the ten-point demand, (ii) constitute a three-member committee and submit an action report within one month, (iii) provide compensation to the petitioners within seven days, as per the Act.

The petitioners contended that, although certain reliefs were granted to them, the respondents (Government of Maharashtra represented by the Principal Secretary, District Magistrate, Commissioner of Police, Commission, etc.) argued that there were no provisions in the Act or the Rules to compensate for the loss related to damage to their intellectual property. The petitioners further argued that the term “property” mentioned in Section 15A (11) (d) includes data, electronic materials, and intellectual rights to such data, which were intended for use in their project. Therefore, the petitioners sought to issue a writ of mandamus to the district magistrate to consider their demands and, more specifically, to grant compensation for the damage and loss of their intellectual property.

The respondents claimed that the petition was not maintainable since the Act did not provide for compensation for damage to “intellectual” property and that the loss could not be quantified due to theft. Furthermore, they contended that even if the petitioners were entitled to such relief, the District Magistrate was not in a position to quantify the loss of such intangible data. They asserted that the term “damage to property” should be interpreted to mean tangible, physical property and not intellectual property or data in intangible form.

The court had to determine whether the petitioners were entitled to such relief under the Act. The court opined that it was the duty of the District Magistrate to file a report on the reliefs granted and state whether they had considered the claim for compensation related to the loss and damage of the petitioners’ intellectual property. It was noted that since the term “property” is not defined in the Act, it should be given a plain and grammatical meaning in the context of Section 15A (11) (d). Therefore, as per the Court, “property” includes both movable and immovable property, regardless of its tangible nature, thereby supporting the petitioners’ argument. The court also highlighted sub-Rules (5) and (7) of Rule 12.

It was held that the said provision of the Act does not exclude any forms of property and must be given a wide and purposeful interpretation. Therefore, the loss caused due to damage to the petitioners’ intellectual property can be valued for granting relief. The district magistrate was directed to inquire into the petitioners’ ten-point demand as well as to assess the relief and determine the quantum of compensation for the damage and theft of their intellectual property. Regarding other claims in the petition, the court held that the petitioners were entitled to approach the Special Court, where their case under various sections of the IPC and the Act was pending.

The respondents filed a Special Leave Petition against the High Court’s decision, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court.

Comments

This is a landmark judgment, which holds precedential value, as it established that damage to intellectual property is compensable under the provisions of the Act. It has brought in a wide interpretation of the said provisions whose ultimate aim is to prevent atrocities against marginalized communities and provide adequate relief when such events occur.

This long stride that the researchers took is truly inspiring. “If you are a Dalit, and education is your only asset, and someone robs you of that possession—destroying your dreams and stripping away your right to equal opportunity—what do you do? You don’t let it go. You fight. And that’s exactly what we did,” the researchers shared in a detailed conversation with The Mooknayak, a web portal dedicated to the marginalized, underprivileged, and Bahujan society.