In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court recently upheld a Bombay High Court decision granting compensation to a Dalit couple under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) for the destruction of their intellectual property.
The Bombay High Court had, in November 2023, ruled that the term “property” under Section 15A of the SC/ST Act includes intellectual property. This entitled the couple to compensation for the loss of research data and materials stored digitally on their laptops, which were destroyed during an illegal police raid at their rented premises.
A Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma upheld the High Court’s verdict and dismissed the Maharashtra government’s appeal, 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.”
Notably, the couple—Dr. Kshipra Kamlesh Uke and Dr. Shiv Shankar Das, scholars from Jawaharlal Nehru University—argued their case in person before both the High Court and the Supreme Court.
The couple had been conducting an independent research project in Nagpur since 2014, studying socio-political awareness among youth. Their research involved collecting over 500 survey samples from students across various educational institutions.
According to their petition, while they were away, the son of their landlord—belonging to a higher caste—allegedly conspired with local police to break into their residence and seize their laptops, which contained their raw research data and survey findings. Upon their return, they filed a complaint, leading to an investigation.
They claimed that this caste-based atrocity led to the loss of their intellectual property, prompting them to seek compensation from the State.
High Court Proceedings
On March 11, 2022, the Bombay High Court directed the National Commission for Scheduled Castes to conduct an inquiry into the couple’s complaint.
During the inquiry, the couple submitted a ten-point demand, which included compensation for their lost intellectual property. The Commission recommended compensation under the SC/ST Act within seven days. However, while the Nagpur District Magistrate sanctioned ₹5 lakh for various other damages, compensation for intellectual property loss was denied.
The couple then approached the Bombay High Court, arguing that the term “property” under Section 15A of the SC/ST Act should encompass digital and intellectual assets.
The State countered that “damage to property” in the Act refers only to tangible, physical assets like houses or movable goods and does not extend to intellectual property or data.
Rejecting this argument, the High Court ruled that the law does not restrict the definition of “property” to physical assets alone. It held that intellectual property, though intangible, is still a form of property and can be valued for compensation.
The Court emphasized that a narrow interpretation of the term “property” would defeat the purpose of the SC/ST Act. It affirmed that intellectual property, including research data stored in digital form, falls within the ambit of the Act and warrants compensation when unlawfully destroyed or taken.
Accordingly, the High Court directed the Nagpur District Magistrate to determine the quantum of compensation for the damage to the couple’s intellectual property.
The Maharashtra government challenged this decision in the Supreme Court, which dismissed the appeal on January 24, affirming the Bombay High Court’s interpretation and ruling in favor of the couple.
