When caste-based oppression destroys someone’s research and data — not just their furniture — is that “property” the law compensates? The Supreme Court has said yes: intellectual property counts.
The case
In Principal Secretary, Government of Maharashtra v. Kshipra Kamlesh Uke & Ors., the Supreme Court upheld a Bombay High Court decision on whether intellectual property is “property” under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. That Act provides relief to atrocity victims for death, injury or property damage — and the question was whether that reaches intangible intellectual assets.
What happened
Two researchers — Dr. Kshipra Kamlesh Uke and Dr. Shiv Shankar Das — were in dispute with their landlord in a higher-caste-dominated society. During an alleged unlawful eviction, authorities seized laptops holding research data from surveys of over 500 students and academic materials. They complained to the National Commission for Scheduled Castes, which recommended investigation and compensation; when that stalled, they moved the Bombay High Court. Compensation was granted for other losses, but the claim for intellectual property damage was initially rejected as unquantifiable.
What the courts held
The Bombay High Court held that “property” under Section 15A(11)(d) of the Act must include intellectual property: because IP has economic and legal value despite being intangible, it qualifies for compensation. Restricting “property” to tangibles, the court reasoned, would contradict the legislative intent of providing comprehensive relief. It directed reassessment of the compensation to include the IP loss. The Supreme Court dismissed Maharashtra’s Special Leave Petition, leaving the expansive interpretation intact.
Why it matters
- IP is compensable “property” in this protective statute — intangibility is no bar.
- Data and research have recognised value. The destruction of datasets and academic work is a real, compensable harm.
- A wider lens on atrocity. The ruling recognises that caste-based oppression can target intellectual contributions, not only physical possessions — guarding against intellectual erasure of marginalised communities.
Frequently asked questions
Is intellectual property “property” under the SC/ST Atrocities Act? Yes. The Bombay High Court, upheld by the Supreme Court, held that “property” in Section 15A(11)(d) includes intellectual property.
What was the harm in the Kshipra Uke case? Seizure of laptops containing survey data from over 500 students and academic research during an alleged caste-based eviction.
Why did the initial IP claim fail? It was first rejected as “unquantifiable,” before the High Court held IP is compensable property and ordered reassessment.
What is the significance of the ruling? It recognises that IP and data have real economic value and that their destruction is a compensable atrocity harm.
Legislation referred to
- The SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
- The Copyright Act, 1957