The Supreme Court of India has ruled recently that intellectual property theft can be an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. This decision came in the case Principal Secretary Government of Maharashtra v. Kshipra Kamlesh Uke (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 49832/2024), upholding a previous Bombay High Court ruling. The landmark decision significantly strengthens the protection of Dalit researchers' rights. The court emphasized that "property" under the Act includes both tangible and intangible assets, establishing a precedent for compensating intellectual property theft as a form of caste-based discrimination.

Dr. Kshipra Kamlesh Uke and Dr. Shiv Shankar Das, both scholars at Jawaharlal Nehru University, had dedicated themselves to a self-funded research project in Nagpur beginning in 2014. Their study aimed to measure the socio-political awareness of Nagpur's young people, and to that end, they collected over 500 survey samples from students across different educational institutions. During their absence from the city, a break-in occurred at their rented residence.

The accusation is that the landlord's son, allegedly of a higher caste, orchestrated the break-in with the aid of officers from the Bajajnagar Police Station. The intruders absconded with vital research materials, including all raw survey data, its processed version, and laptops containing critical research results. When the scholars returned, they discovered the theft and immediately filed a police complaint, prompting an investigation.

The researchers believe this act to be a caste-based atrocity, beyond a mere theft, citing the significant damage done to their intellectual property and their academic endeavours. They requested State compensation for their lost research data, which they considered an irreparable intellectual property loss, resulting from acts of caste discrimination.

On March 11, 2022, the Bombay High Court ordered the National Commission for Scheduled Castes to finish investigating the couple's complaint. The couple presented a ten-point request during the inquiry, which included reimbursement for their intellectual property loss. After the inquiry, the Commission advised paying the couple under the SC/ST Act within seven days. However, the District Magistrate only approved ₹5 lakhs for various damages and refused to pay for the intellectual property loss.

The couple challenged this decision by appealing to the Bombay High Court, seeking redress for their intellectual property damage. The State opposed their plea, arguing that the SC/ST Act did not include provisions for intellectual property loss compensation. The central legal question before the High Court was whether Section 15A of the SC/ST Act, in conjunction with sub-Rules (4) and (5) of Rule 12 of the Atrocities Rules, permitted intellectual property loss compensation. Section 15A(11)(d) of the Act mandated that the State offer relief for death, injury, or property damage, with Rule 12(4) instructing the District Magistrate to ensure victim relief within seven days.

The couple asserted that the term "property" under Section 15A should have a wide interpretation, including intellectual property, digital data, and electronic materials. Meanwhile, the State argued for a restricted interpretation, maintaining that "property damage" solely referred to tangible assets such as homes or movable items, excluding intangible assets like research data or intellectual property.

The legal dispute centered on the definition of "property" under Section 15A(11)(d) of the Atrocities Act. The State of Maharashtra argued it only covered physical property, excluding intellectual property. However, the Bombay High Court took a progressive view, stating the term encompassed intangible assets like patents, copyrights, and research data. The court recognized that intellectual property, despite its intangible nature, holds significant economic and professional value.

The Bombay High Court's decision was based on both legal and moral grounds. Drawing from property law and jurisprudence on intangible assets, the court emphasized that intellectual property is a valuable entity that can be stolen. Limiting "property" to physical assets would undermine the Atrocities Act's goal of providing comprehensive relief to victims of caste-based atrocities.

On March 11, 2022, the High Court ordered the National Commission for Scheduled Castes to finalize its inquiry into a couple's complaint. The National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) investigated the matter and recommended compensation, including the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT). While partial compensation was provided, authorities initially denied intellectual property losses. The Bombay High Court intervened, ordering a reassessment of the claims to include intellectual property as compensable under the Act.

As part of this inquiry, the couple presented a ten-point demand, including compensation for their intellectual property loss. Following its investigation, the Commission recommended that Nagpur's District Magistrate and other officials award compensation under the SC/ST Act within a week.
 
The District Magistrate subsequently approved ₹5 lakhs for various damages, but denied compensation for the intellectual property loss. Unhappy with this outcome, the couple petitioned the Bombay High Court, specifically seeking compensation for their intellectual property damage, arguing that this loss should be covered under the SC/ST Act.

The Supreme Court's affirmation solidifies the legal principle that intellectual property theft, if motivated by caste, is an offence under the Atrocities Act. By rejecting the State's appeal, the court reinforced that "property" must be interpreted in line with contemporary legal and technological standards. This ruling acts as a safeguard for marginalized researchers, protecting their academic work from caste-based discrimination.

This decision has broader implications, setting a judicial precedent for acknowledging and compensating intellectual property loss in cases of caste-based atrocities, especially for Dalit and Adivasi scholars. Given the rising importance of intellectual property in academia, this legal interpretation ensures marginalized communities aren't further disadvantaged through theft or destruction of their scholarly work.

This case also highlights the need for improved institutional mechanisms to prevent and redress such injustices. Alleged police involvement in the theft reveals systemic issues that demand urgent reform. Legal decisions like this are vital for closing legal gaps and ensuring marginalized communities receive sufficient protection and redressal.

The Bombay High Court's expansive perspective on property rights aligns with international legal trends. Many countries, like the US and EU, treat intellectual property with the same legal seriousness as tangible property. This ruling brings Indian law in line with international standards, acknowledging that in today's digital and knowledge-driven economy, intellectual property is integral to an individual's professional and economic identity.

The Supreme Court's upholding of the Bombay High Court's decision represents a significant victory for both caste-based legal protections and intellectual property rights. This landmark ruling recognizes the changing landscape of property and safeguards Dalit researchers and scholars from injustice caused by restrictive legal interpretations. It demonstrates the judiciary's commitment to equality and justice, reinforcing the Atrocities Act's purpose of providing comprehensive relief to victims of caste-based oppression. To build on this progress, legislative and policy efforts must be strengthened to ensure that marginalized communities' intellectual contributions are protected from exploitation and discrimination.

Written By: Md.Imran Wahab, IPS, IGP, Provisioning, West Bengal
Email: imranwahab216@gmail.com, Ph no: 9836576565