Introduction

The Bombay High Court’s judgment in Dr. Kshipra Kamlesh Uke & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Criminal Writ Petition No. 759 of 2022) is a landmark decision addressing the scope of compensation for intellectual property loss under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Atrocities Act). The ruling expands the interpretation of “damage to property” and establishes a precedent for compensating victims for loss of intellectual and digital assets. The court also examined the obligations of the District Magistrate and State authorities under the Atrocities Act and relevant rules.

Facts of the Case

The petitioners, Dr. Kshipra Kamlesh Uke and Dr. Shiv Shankar Das, both belonging to the Scheduled Caste community, were conducting socio-political research in Nagpur. During their absence from the city, their residence was unlawfully accessed, and crucial research data, laptops, and survey materials were stolen. They alleged that the son of the landlord, who belonged to an upper caste, colluded with police officers to carry out the crime and obstruct justice.

Following an inquiry, the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) recommended forming a Special Investigation Team (SIT) and providing compensation. Despite this, the government denied additional compensation for intellectual property loss, leading to the petitioners approaching the Bombay High Court.

Legal Issues

  1. Whether the term “damage to property” under Section 15A(11)(d) of the Atrocities Act includes intellectual property.
  2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to compensation for the loss of research data and digital assets.
  3. Whether the District Magistrate was obligated to assess and grant such compensation.
  4. Whether the State’s refusal to acknowledge intellectual property loss as compensable was legally justifiable.

Court’s Observations

Interpretation of “Property”

The court held that the term “property” is not confined to tangible assets but includes intellectual property, data, and electronic material. The judgment referenced:

  • John Salmond’s Jurisprudence, which defines property to include intangible assets.
  • Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code, which covers offenses against both tangible and intangible property.
  • The necessity of a broader interpretation in light of the evolving digital landscape.

The court commented: “The interpretation of the term ‘property’ must evolve with time. In an era where intellectual capital holds immense value, denying compensation for its destruction would be a grave injustice.”

State’s Responsibility under the Atrocities Act

The court emphasized that the Atrocities Act mandates the State to provide relief for “damage to property” and that this duty extends to intellectual property rights. The refusal to assess such damages was deemed an abdication of responsibility by the authorities.

The judgment criticized the authorities’ stance, stating: “The reluctance of the State to recognize loss of intellectual property as compensable damages under the Atrocities Act amounts to a regressive approach that undermines the spirit of the legislation.”

Relief and Directions

The court directed the District Magistrate to:

  • Conduct an inquiry into the petitioners’ claims for intellectual property loss.
  • Assess the quantum of compensation based on the evidence submitted.
  • File a report with the Special Court within three months.

The court further noted: “Failure to act on this directive shall be deemed as non-compliance with the statutory obligations imposed upon the District Magistrate under the Atrocities Act.”

Conclusion

This judgment is a progressive step in recognizing digital and intellectual property under the Atrocities Act. It ensures that marginalized communities receive adequate protection not just for physical but also intellectual assets. The ruling reinforces the State’s obligation to provide comprehensive relief to victims of caste-based crimes, adapting to modern technological realities.

References

  • Dr. Kshipra Kamlesh Uke & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Criminal Writ Petition No. 759 of 2022)
  • Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • John Salmond’s Jurisprudence