Introduction
In the recent case of Principal Secretary Government of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Kshipra Kamlesh (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 49832/2024) the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissing the Special Leave Petition (Criminal) filed by the State of Maharashtra upheld the ruling by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, which essentially dealt with the interpretation of the word "property" and subsequently the compensation for its loss of within the scope of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and its accompanying Rules, 1995.
The SLP was before the bench of Hon'ble Justice Mr. B.V. Nagarathna and Hon'ble Justice Mr. Satish Chandra Sharma who while dismissing the SLP filed by State of Maharashtra observed, "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."
This upholding of the Bombay HC ruling is seen by many as a monumental step for IP getting recognition as "property" within the meaning of other statutes.
Brief facts of the Case
Brief Background of Petitioners
In this case, Dr. Kshipra Kamlesh Uke and Dr. Shiv Shankar Das (Petitioners) belonged to the Schedule Caste community and held Ph.D Decrees from Jawaharlal Nehru University and since 2014, the Petitioners at their own expense engaged in personal research in Nagpur.
Research Conducted by Petitioners
During their research on Socio-political awareness amongst youth in the City the Petitioners collected more than 500 samples for their survey, from students of various educational centers.
Cause of Dispute
While the Petitioners were out of the city for their research, the son of the owner of their house, who belonged to a higher caste, in connivance with the Nagpur Police Station, broke the locks of the premises where the Petitioners resided stole their laptops and took away
- Raw research data
- Survey forms, and
- Process data.
The Petitioner lodged a complaint against the caste atrocity and sought relief from the State in the form of compensation for the Intellectual Property lost during the caste atrocity in the form of data collected during their research.
Action taken by the Petitioners
The Petitioners had approached the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC), to take action by making necessary recommendations to the State Government and District Magistrate in terms of the provisions provided under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Atrocities Act) and Rules. Since no progress was made, the Petitioners filed a Criminal Writ Petition No.647/2021 at the Hon'ble Bombay High Court seeking instructions of the court on the complaint bearing File No. Maha/30/2019-APCR.
The Hon'ble Bombay High Court, by its judgment dated March 11, 2022, directed the NCSC to complete the inquiry on the Petitioners' complaint. In accordance with the High Court's order, the commission concluded its inquiry, and its findings were sent to the District Magistrate for consideration, to provide the couple with monetary compensation for the loss of their research work.
Apart from that, the High Court has also directed the district magistrate to constitute a committee under the chairmanship of the joint commissioner of police to probe the theft and submit an action-taken report within one month.
Although the District Magistrate complied with all other recommendations, the recommendation made by the commission to compensate the couple in respect of damage to their intellectual property was not accepted.
The police investigation resulted in the submission of a charge sheet against the accused in a special court hearing SC/ST Act case. The court in this matter granted the couple a compensation of Rs 4.5 lakh.
Nonetheless this grant of compensation did not take into consideration the destruction of their research work and loss of their intellectual property. Any further compensation was denied by the District Magistrate, stating that there was no provision under Section 15A of the SC/ST Act to compensate for theft or destruction of data.
Aggrieved by this the petitioners again knocked the doors of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court Events leading up to the present case.
| Date | Year | Event |
|---|---|---|
| – | 2014 | The respondents (complainants) have been engaged in a socio-political study at Nagpur |
| 4th January 2019 | 2019 | While the respondents (complainants) were out of the city, the son of the owner of their house, who belongs to a higher caste, in connivance with the Police, broke the locks of the premises where the Petitioners resided and took away raw research data. Subsequent to this a complaint was filed with the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) |
| 23rd September 2021 | 2021 | Since there was no progress with regards to their complaint at National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) the respondents (complainants) moved the Bombay High Court and filed Criminal Writ Petition No.647/2021 for its intervention on complaint bearing File No. Maha/30/2019-APCR. |
| 11th March 2022 | 2022 | The Bombay HC by its judgment directed the NCSC to complete the inquiry on the complaint |
| 22nd April 2022 | 2022 | In compliance with the directions of this Court, the Commission completed the inquiry. The Commission submitted its recommendation in form of Minutes of Hearing which was sent to the District Administration |
| 12th May 2022 | 2022 | Complying with the recommendations relief was partly Transferred. |
| 15th June 2022 | 2022 | Authorities informed there is no provision to grant additional relief in the form of compensation for the loss and damage of intellectual property. |
Arguments before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court
At the very heart of this legal dispute was the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989's Section 15A(11)(d). The provision requires the State to offer compensation for any death, injury, or damage to property suffered by the complainant due to any caste based atrocity. The main issue in this case revolved around the interpretation of the word "property" within this provision.
Scope of the word "property" within the meaning of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
The argument put forth by the complainant was that the word "property" should be interpreted liberally by the courts in absence of a clear definition given within the Act, to include tangible as well as intangible assets which includes intellectual property.
The rationale behind this argument was that in today's day and age intellectual property, including research data, patents, copyrights, and other scholarly materials, constitutes a valuable asset and therefore should be eligible for compensation. It was further argued by the complainants that the research data stolen was their years of hard work and has caused them serious financial losses as well.
It was further argued by the complainant that the legislative intent behind the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is to provide aggrieved persons of caste based atrocity and discrimination with adequate relief and compensation. In case the interpretation of the word "property" within section 15A(11)(d) is narrowed down to just tangible property it defeats the purpose of the Act.
The State of Maharashtra in its response to the complainants arguments contented that the term "property" in the Act exclusively refers to tangible assets, the respondent sated that the legislative intent behind this provision was to provide relief to anyone who has suffered caste based violence and damages to property which means tangible property like house, farmland etc. The state further stated that partial compensation amounting to Rs. 4,50,000 had already been disbursed to the researchers from a sanctioned sum of Rs. 6,00,000.
Court's Ruling
Can Intellectual Property be compensated for under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
The Hon'ble Bombay High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner. The court went on to interpret the term "property" liberally and ruled that within the scope of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, property includes both tangible and intangible assets. The court, upon reviewing legal literature concluded that although the nature of intellectual property is intangible, it is capable of being valued and therefore is compensable.
The court in continuation reasoned that since within the section of the Act the term "property" has not been defined and the Section 15A(11)(d) of the Acts mandates the state to provide relief in case of any death, injury, or damage to property resulting due to caste based violence its meaning should be taken in a broad sense.
Power of Court to give directions in case of inadequate compensation under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
Further the Hon'ble Bombay High Court relied on Rule 12(7) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 which makes it mandatory for the DM having the local jurisdiction to conduct an inquiry and submit a report assessing the compensable damages and if the court is of view that the compensation is not enough it may give directions to reassess the amount. Consequently, the Court directed the District Magistrate of Nagpur to reassess the claims of the petitioners, including their intellectual property loss, and quantify the appropriate.
The Hon'ble Supreme Courts' ruling.
Against this judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay HC, the state of Maharashtra went to the Supreme Court with a Special Leave Petition (SLP). The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dismissing the SLP filed by the State of Maharashtra, endorsed the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's reasoning that intellectual property is a compensable form of property under the Atrocities Act.
Implications moving forward.
The judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and the subsequent endorsement of the same by the Supreme Court have far-reaching consequences for criminal law jurisprudence, Intellectual property laws, and social justice in India.
Intellectual property being recognized as a compensable asset affirms that intellectual property is as valuable as other tangible property and can be quantified monetarily. This paves the way for similar interpretations in other areas of criminal and civil law.
This judgment strengthens the current framework in place to protect the marginalized from any caste based atrocities by including intellectual property within the scope of the term property and making it compensable it ensuring that the intellectual property of the marginalized is better protected.
This significant ruling expands the range of legal safeguards for individuals affected by caste-related crimes and establishes a benchmark for acknowledging intellectual property rights within the realm of criminal law.
For further information please contact at S.S Rana & Co. email: info@ssrana.in or call at (+91- 11 4012 3000). Our website can be accessed at www.ssrana.in
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
