Supreme Court upholds compensation to Dalit couple under SC/ST Act for destruction of intellectual property

In what could be a first of its kind verdict, the Supreme Court recently upheld a Bombay High Court ruling that had allowed a claim by a Dalit couple for monetary compensation 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 held that the word "property" under Section 15A of the SC/ST Act would include intellectual property as well, thereby entitling the couple to compensation for the loss/ theft of data and research material stored in digital /electronic form in their laptops, which were destroyed during an illegal police raid at their rented premises.A Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma upheld the Bombay High Court verdict in favour of the couple, and dismissed the appeal filed by the Maharashtra government in the matter."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," the Court said.Interestingly, the couple argued their case in person before the High Court as well as the Supreme Court..Background.The couple, Dr. Kshipra Kamlesh Uke and Dr. Shiv Shankar Das, both scholars from Jawaharlal Nehru University, were 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.During their research, they had collected more than 500 samples for their survey from students of various educational centres. They alleged that while they were out of the city, the son of the owner of their rented house, who belongs to a higher caste, in connivance with the Bajajnagar Police Station, 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 and an investigation was launched.They claimed that as a result of the caste-based atrocities by the police, they lost all their intellectual property in the form of data collected during their research, for which they sought relief in the form of compensation from the State.On March 11, 2022, the High Court ordered the National Commission for Scheduled Castes to complete the inquiry on the couple’s complaint..During the course of this inquiry, the couple submitted a ten point demand which included a demand for compensation for the loss caused to them due to the damage to their intellectual propertyThe Commission completed its inquiry and sent its recommendations to the District Magistrate and District Authorities of Nagpur. It recommended that the couple be given compensation according to the SC/ST Act within seven days.The District Magistrate, in turn, ordered the grant of ₹5 lakhs for various other damages caused to them. However, such relief was declined for the loss of intellectual property.The petitioners then approached the Bombay High Court seeking relief in the nature of compensation for damage caused to their intellectual property..High Court Verdict.The State argued that there there is no provision in the SC/ST Act for granting compensation or relief for the loss of intellectual property. The question before the High Court was whether the couple would be entitled to such compensation under Section 15A of the SC/ST Act read with sub-Rules (4) and (5) of Rule 12 of the Atrocities Rules.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.Further, Rule 12 of the SC/ST Rules requires the District Magistrate, Superintendent of Police and the Special Court to ensure implementation of the provisions of the Act. 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 caste-based atrocities.The argument of the couple was that the word “property” referred to in Section 15A, encompasses property such as data, electronic material and intellectual rights to such data and material contained in electronic or digital form.The State on the other hand argued 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.The Court, after examining the provision, said that the interpretation given by the State is "very narrow."It noted that the law does not define the word property and in the absence of such definition, it must be given a plain and literal meaning. Therefore, the word "property" would include immovable and movable property, whether tangible or intangible or in any form which is capable of being valued, the High Court held. 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 SC/ST Act, the High Court added."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, would be capable of valuation for the purpose of granting reliefs," the High Court said.Therefore, it directed the Nagpur District Magistrate/ Collector to decide the quantum of relief/ compensation to be paid to the couple for the damage caused to their intellectual property. The State challenged this verdict before the top court by filing an appeal, which was dismissed on January 24..[Read Supreme Court order].[Read Bombay High Court Judgment]