Introduction:
The Supreme Court recently upheld the Bombay High Court’s decision in the case of Principal Secretary, Government of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Kshipra Kamlesh Uke & Ors., involving compensation for intellectual property loss under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (“the Act”) and its associated Rules of 1995 (“the Rules”). While the Act is primarily intended to protect victims of atrocities by offering relief in cases of death, injury, or ‘damage to property’ the question in this case was whether intellectual property should be considered as ‘property’ when determining compensation for its loss or damage.

Background:
It all began when two researchers, Dr. Kshipra Kamlesh Uke and Dr. Shiv Shankar Das, got into a dispute with their landlord. This conflict escalated when the landlord attempted to evict the researchers from a society dominated by higher caste residents. Allegedly, the landlord, with the help of police officials, trespassed into the couple’s home and stole invaluable assets, including laptops containing important data, research, and certificates. They claimed that their research project involved the collection of survey data from over five hundred students, along with other critical academic material. The destruction and theft of their intellectual property caused a caste-based atrocity which prompted them to approach the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) for immediate action. The NCSC issued recommendations to the District Magistrate of Nagpur, including proper investigation of the matter and compensation for property loss.

However, due to the lack of progress, the researchers filed a petition with the Bombay High Court to expedite the implementation of the recommendations made by the NCSC. During the inquiry by NCSC, the researchers sought various forms of relief and compensation for the losses they had incurred, including damage to their intellectual property, based on relief under Rule 12(4), (5), and (7) of the Rules, along with Section 15A(11)(d) of the Act. The said rule provides minimum relief for atrocity victims, including immediate assistance in cash or kind, medical aid, clothing, meals, and compensation for death, injury, or property damage. While compensation was granted under various provisions of the Act and the Rules, the compensation for damage to intellectual property was rejected, as it could not be ‘quantified’.

Dissatisfied, the researchers filed a petition (Criminal Writ Petition No. 759 of 2022) before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court for the full implementation of the NCSC’s recommendations. They also sought the formation of a Special Investigation Team to complete the investigation and submit a charge sheet under Section 173 of the CrPC, in addition to seeking compensation for the damage to their property, including the loss of their intellectual property. The aggrieved argued that the definition of property under Section 15A(11)(d) of the Act should include intellectual property, given its value and the irreplaceable nature of their research data. They emphasized that the professional loss they suffered due to the destruction of this data was immense and warranted appropriate compensation.

The State, on the other hand, argued that the Act has no provisions for compensating loss or damage to intellectual property, as it was formed to address damage to tangible and physical property.

High Court’s Observation:

The key issue before the Bombay High Court was whether the term damage to property under the Act includes intellectual property and whether such damages are eligible for compensation. After reviewing the case, the Bombay High Court focused on the interpretation of property under Section 15A(11)(d) of the Act when determining relief for loss. The Act mandates that the state provide relief for death, injury, or property damage. Since the Act does not specifically define ‘property,’ the court opined that its interpretation should be drawn from legal literature. The Court was of the view that the definition should be expansive enough to include incorporeal property, such as patents, copyrights, and designs, in addition to tangible property.

To the question of whether the loss or damage of intellectual property can be compensated, the Court stated that since intellectual property holds economic and legal value (despite being intangible), it is eligible for compensation. The court also relied on relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to affirm that intellectual property qualifies as a compensable loss under the law. The court emphasized that restricting the definition of property for the purpose of relief would go against the legislative intent of the Act, which aims to provide comprehensive relief and rehabilitation to victims of caste-based atrocities.

The High Court thus partly allowed the petition filed by the researchers and directed the District Magistrate of Nagpur to reassess the claims of the aggrieved party, including their intellectual property loss, and to quantify the compensation accordingly. The High Court’s decision was later challenged in the Supreme Court by the State of Maharashtra through a Special Leave Petition (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 49832/2024).

The State primarily challenged the expansive interpretation of property and the compensation for intellectual property. A bench consisting of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma upheld the High Court’s decision and rejected the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the State of Maharashtra, stating, “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.”

 Comment:

This case highlights how caste-based oppression is not limited to physical possessions like land or wealth but extends to intellectual property as well. The court’s recognition of intellectual property as ‘property’ under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is a significant step toward protecting marginalized communities from not just economic exploitation but also the erasure of their intellectual contributions.

Written by Oruj Aashna