Intellectual Property Theft Comes Under SC/ST Act : Supreme Court Affirms Bombay HC Verdict Giving Relief To Dalit Researchers

Update: 2025-01-31 04:23 GMT
Intellectual Property Theft Comes Under SC/ST Act : Supreme Court Affirms Bombay HC Verdict Giving Relief To Dalit Researchers
  • whatsapp icon
Click the Play button to listen to article
story

The Supreme Court recently upheld the Bombay High Court's judgment on the issue of compensation for intellectual property loss under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and its accompanying Rules, 1995.This High Court's ruling upheld the right of two researchers from the Scheduled Caste community, who alleged caste-based atrocities, to compensation...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

The Supreme Court recently upheld the Bombay High Court's judgment on the issue of compensation for intellectual property loss under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and its accompanying Rules, 1995.

This High Court's ruling upheld the right of two researchers from the Scheduled Caste community, who alleged caste-based atrocities, to compensation for the loss of their intellectual property due to a theft.

A bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma dismissed an SLP file by State of Maharashtra observing, “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.”

The Bombay High Court had noted that Secion 15A(11)(d) enjoins the State to provide relief in respect of death, injury, or damage to property. As the word “property” is not defined in any provision of the Atrocities Act, it must be given a plain and literal meaning which would include immovable and movable property, whether tangible or intangible or in any form of whatsoever nature which is capable of being valued, the High Court observed.

The meaning to be assigned to the word “property” would include incorporeal property such as a right in rem, a right over material or immaterial thing and includes a legal right in a property not having any physical existence such as a Patent, a Copyright or a Design which are intangible in nature and lack physical existence. 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 Atrocities Act”, the High Court had held.

Background

Dr. Kshipra Kamlesh Uke and Dr. Shiv Shankar Das, both Ph.D. holders from Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, had been conducting socio-political research in Nagpur since 2014. They claimed that their research project involved the collection of survey data from over five hundred students, along with other critical academic material.

In their absence from their rented residence, the son of their landlord who belonged to a high caste allegedly broke into their home with assistance from police officials and stole essential research equipment, including laptops containing valuable data and survey forms.

They contended that the theft and destruction of their intellectual property constituted a caste-based atrocity under the provisions of the Atrocities Act. They approached the National Commission for Scheduled Castes, which issued recommendations to the District Magistrate of Nagpur. These included directions for compensation and the formation of a Special Investigating Team (SIT) to further investigate the incident. Dissatisfied with the limited relief granted and the lack of progress in implementing the Commission's recommendations, they approached the Bombay High Court.

In their petition, the researchers sought the full implementation of the recommendations made by the National Commission for Scheduled Castes, the formation of an SIT to complete the investigation and submit a report (charge sheet) under Section 173 of the CrPC, and compensation for their property damage, including the loss of their intellectual property.

They argued that the term “property” under Section 15A(11)(d) of the Atrocities Act must be interpreted broadly to encompass both tangible and intangible assets, such as intellectual property. They emphasized the irreplaceable nature of their research data and the significant professional loss they had suffered due to its destruction.

The State, however, contended that the term “property” under the Atrocities Act referred exclusively to tangible, physical property and did not extend to intellectual property. The State further argued that there was no statutory basis for compensating the loss of intellectual property under the existing provisions of the Act or its Rules.

The National Commission for Scheduled Castes, after conducting an inquiry, had recommended the consideration of the petitioners' demands and the provision of compensation within a stipulated timeframe. Following these recommendations, an SIT was formed, and a chargesheet was filed under various sections of the IPC and the Atrocities Act. Additionally, partial compensation amounting to Rs. 4,50,000 out of a sanctioned sum of Rs. 6,00,000 was disbursed to the researchers. However, the authorities refused to compensate for the intellectual property loss, citing the absence of legal provisions for such relief.

The Bombay High Court emphasized that the term “property” should be interpreted expansively to include both tangible and intangible assets. The Court drew upon definitions of property in legal literature and relevant provisions of the IPC to underscore that intellectual property is capable of valuation and constitutes a compensable loss.

The High Court highlighted the legislative intent of the Atrocities Act, which aims to provide comprehensive relief and rehabilitation to victims of caste-based atrocities. It noted that limiting the definition of property to physical assets would undermine the Act's remedial purpose. The Court also pointed to Rule 12(7) of the Atrocities Rules, which mandates the District Magistrate to submit a report on the relief provided to victims. It observed that the Special Court retains the authority to enhance compensation if the relief granted is found to be inadequate.

The High Court partly allowed the petition, directing the District Magistrate of Nagpur to reassess the petitioners' claims, including their intellectual property loss, and to quantify the compensation accordingly. This was challenged in the Supreme Court by the State of Maharashtra.

Case no. – Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 49832/2024

Case Title – Principal Secretary Government of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Kshipra Kamlesh Uke & Ors.

Click Here To Read/Download Order 

Full View


Tags:    

Similar News