While holding a significant Judgment of Bombay High Court, the Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma dismissed a SLP against the Judgment.
The Division Bench Comprising Justice Vinay Joshi and Justice Valmiki SA Menezes, Bombay High Court has delivered an important judgment on SC/ST Act by enlarging the scope of the word ‘Property’ and giving compensation to a Dalit Scholar Couple whose Independent Research Work was stolen by a person.
The Fact of the Case
The Petitioners both belong to Scheduled Caste possessing Ph.D. Decrees from Jawaharlal University, New Delhi with specialization in International Politics and Political Science, respectively. They averred that they have been engaged in a personal research project at their own expense since the year 2014 in Nagpur, to study Socio-political awareness amongst youth in the City, and during their research had collected more than 500 samples for their survey, from students of various educational centers.
They alleged that while they were out of the city, the son of the owner of their house, who belongs to a higher caste, in connivance with the Bajajnagar Police Station, Nagpur, broke the locks of the premises where the Petitioners resided and took away raw research data, survey forms and process data by stealing the Petitioners’ laptops. On their return, the Petitioners lodged a complaint, in which investigation was launched. However, as a result of the aforementioned caste atrocity, they have lost all their intellectual property in the form of data done during their research for which they had sought relief in the form of compensation from the State.
Contentions of the Petitioners
It was their contention that the Petitioners had approached the National Commission for Scheduled Caste to take action by making necessary recommendations to the State Government and District Magistrate in terms of the provisions of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Atrocities Act) and the said Rules, but since no progress was made by the said National Commission, they were constrained to file Criminal Writ Petition to seek directions from the Court, to the said National Commission to initiate an inquiry on their complaint.
It was the Petitioners’ case that though, certain reliefs have been granted in terms of the Clauses of the Schedule to the said Rules, that by a communication dated 15/6/2022, the Authorities have taken a stand that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules to grant any additional relief to the Petitioners in the form of compensation for the loss in respect of damage to their intellectual property, which resulted from the theft and destruction of the data collected by them for the project. This appears to be the main thrust of Point No.2 raised by the Petitioners in their Ten Point demand which was considered by the District Magistrate after receiving the recommendations from the National Commission, but, however granted only the reliefs specified in the preceding paragraph.
The Petitioners then seek a direction/writ of mandamus to the District Magistrate to consider the Petitioners’ Ten Point demand which was formed part of the National Commission’s recommendations, and to more specifically consider, assess and grant relief in the nature of a compensation arising from the damage caused to their intellectual property.
Contentions by the Respondents
In that affidavit, a specific stand has been taken that there is no provision in the Atrocities Act for granting compensation/reliefs as prayed for in the Petition and as such, the Petition was not maintainable. The stand taken was that the loss to the intellectual property rights could not be quantified or claimed as a relief or compensation under the provisions of the Atrocities Act.
Analysis by the High Court
While analyzing the case, the court said that,
Object of the Act
The preamble of the Act specifies that apart from attempting to prevent the commission of offences of atrocities against the members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes and to provide for special Courts to try offences thereunder, the Act was also enacted to grant relief and rehabilitation of victims of such offences.
The object of the Act is, therefore, to charge the State and several of its authorities which are specified in the various provisions, with the responsibility of preventing such atrocities and to provide for relief in the form of compensation for loss incurred by a member of such community, due to the commission of an offence of atrocity defined under Section 3 of the Act.
Chapter IVA of the Act specifies the rights of victims and witnesses; Section 15A casts the duty and responsibility on the State to provide witness and victim protection and sub-section (11) of Section 15A enjoins the State to specify a specific scheme to ensure implementation of the rights and entitlements of the victims. Under clause (d) of sub-section (11) of Section 15A, the State is charged with the duty to provide relief in respect of death or injury or damage to property.
Rule 12 of the Atrocities Rules requires the District Magistrate, Superintendent of Police and the Special Court to ensure implementation of the provisions of the Act; more particularly, sub-Rule (4) of Rule 12 requires the District Magistrate to make necessary administrative and other arrangements and provide relief within seven days to the victims of atrocities in terms of Annexures I and II of the Schedule, while under sub-Rule (5), the relief to be provided by the District Magistrate to damage to property, shall be in addition to any other right to claim compensation under any other law.
The Interpretation of the word ‘Property’ under SC/ST Act
The argument of the Petitioners, in short, was that the word “property” referred to in the above mentioned provision, encompasses property such as data, electronic material and intellectual rights to such data and material contained in electronic or digital form which was to be used in the project being undertaken by the Petitioners.
Consequently, the Petitioners argued that refusal of the State Government and the District Magistrate even attempt at evaluating the compensation/relief due to them for loss of property, amounted to abdicating their duty under the aforementioned provisions of the Act and Rules and therefore, it entitled them to a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for appropriate direction to perform their duty.
In counter to this argument, the Respondents had submitted that the words “damage to property” contained in the aforesaid provisions are required to be interpreted to mean tangible and physical property such as a house or movable items and cannot be interpreted to mean intellectual property or data in intangible form.
After listening both sides, the court said that,
“From the stand taken by the State in this matter, it appears that the interpretation given by the State government and the District Magistrate to the words “damage to property” in the above referred provision has been narrow and according to these authorities, does not include the right to relief or compensation for loss arising from loss of data and research material collected by the Petitioners during the course of their profession.
17. A plain reading of sub-clause (d) of sub-Section 11 of Section 15A enjoins the State to provide relief in respect of three situations namely, death or injury or damage to property. The word “property” is not defined in any provision of the Atrocities Act and, therefore, must be given a plain and literal meaning to the word, 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 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.”
While Referring John Salmond, The Court further said that,
“John Salmond in “Jurisprudence” defines “property” to mean: “”In its widest sense, property includes all a person’s legal rights, of whatever description. A man’s property is all that is his in law. This usage, however, is obsolete at the present day, though it is common enough in the older books….
In a second and narrower sense, property includes not all a person’s rights, but only his proprietary as opposed to his personal rights. The former constitute his estate or property, while the latter constitute his status or personal condition. In this sense a man’s land, chattels, shares, and the debts due to him are his property; but not his life or liberty or reputation. …In a third application, which is that adopted [here], the term includes not even all proprietary rights, but only those which are both proprietary and in rem. The law of property is the law of proprietary rights in rem, the law of proprietary rights in personam being distinguished from it as the law of obligations. According to this usage a freehold or leasehold estate in land, or a patent or copyright, is property; but a debt or the benefit of a contract is not….
Finally, in the narrowest use of the term, it includes nothing more than corporeal property — that is to say, the right of ownership in a material object, or that object itself.”
19. Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code provides for offences against property. Under the Indian Penal Code “movable property” is defined in Section 22 to include corporeal property of every description, except land and thing attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything which is attached to the earth. Thus, the definition of movable property includes all property other than immovable property which would include data, intellectual property and property of any description which is not fastened to the earth.
Considering the meaning of the word “property” from any angle, we are of the firm opinion that for the purpose of giving a meaningful interpretation to the word in Section 15A of the Act and in Rule 12 of the Atrocities Rules, the provisions do not admit of any exclusion to forms of property and would, thus, have to be given a wide and purposeful meaning.
We, therefore hold that the intellectual property contained in the form of data or electronic material or any other material contained in the soft copy or digital form that may have been subject matter of the offence/crime and atrocities committed against the Petitioners, as claimed by them in their Ten Point claim and details of damaged items would be capable of valuation for the purpose of granting reliefs in terms of the provisions of Section 15A read with Rule 12 of the Atrocities Act and Rules made thereunder.”
The Court directed District Magistrate to consider the claims of the Petitioners in the light of the provisions quoted above and to arrive at a valuation and consequent relief/compensation in terms of the provisions.