In the groundbreaking ruling, the Apex Court in the case of Kshipra Kamlesh Uke & Anr. vs The Principal Secretary, Government of Maharashtra & Ors. [Special leave petition (Criminal diary no (s).49832/2024)] upheld the Bombay High Court's judgment surrounding the issue of compensation for intellectual property loss. In this ruling, the Apex court has expanded the interpretation of the word "property", which may also include "intellectual property" in their ambit as per Section 15A(11)(d) the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (PoA Act) and Rule 12 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Factual Background
The case revolves around the theft of the Intellectual Property of Dr Kshipra Kamlesh Uke and Dr Shiv Shankar Das, two PhD holders from Jawaharlal Nehru University who were working on a project to study the awareness of socio-political issues amongst the youth. In their complaint, the researchers contended that an act of theft was committed at their home by their landlord's son, including their laptop containing the research data and samples of their project. Subsequently, the researchers, in their plea, contented that the theft had been committed owing to the caste-based atrocity and, thereof, sought the intervention of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) for a speedy resolution. Upon the inquiry and investigation, the Nagpur District Magistrate allowed the compensation of 5 lakh rupees to the researchers.
Judicial Intervention
The couple has challenged the order and filed a petition before the Bombay High Court for granting compensation for intellectual property loss as well, arguing upon the term "property" under Section 15A(11)(d) of the Atrocities Act to include intangible assets like intellectual Property as well under their ambit, as the loss of data is extremely difficult to recover. The Bombay High Court adopted a radical approach. It recognized intellectual Property as a subset of Property owing to its intangible nature and directed the NCSC to reassess the petitioner's claim. The petitioners claimed that the compensation for their intellectual property loss was insufficient and presented their ten-point demand to be assessed for granting compensation. The Maharashtra government challenged the said decision, challenging the expanded interpretation of the word "property" under Rule 12 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Apex Court refused to entertain the plea challenged by the Maharashtra government and maintained the ruling of the High Court, citing the nature of intellectual property loss coupled with the provisions of anti-atrocity laws.
Conclusion
This judgement was handed down as a welcoming ruling issued along the lines of the intellectual property sphere. With the advancement of technology and the efforts put towards the protection of the individual's IP, this judgement would be cited as a landmark precedent, ultimately broadening the landscape of intellectual property protection.
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.
