New Delhi: The Supreme Court this month upheld the Bombay High Court’s decision to give an expansive meaning to the word “property” under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, by including intellectual property work, even in digital form, within its ambit.
The HC had interpreted the word “property” in the context of Section 15A of the SC/ST Act that entitles a member of the SC/ST community to compensation for loss or destruction of their property.
The broad interpretation to the term was delivered in a case filed by a Dalit couple, scholars from Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), who sought monetary compensation for the loss they suffered due to theft of their research work while they were living in Nagpur.
While allowing the couple’s claim, the HC had in November 2023 expanded the definition of “property” under Section 15A of the said Act to hold that it should encompass both tangible and intangible assets.
On 24 January, the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal filed against the HC order by the Maharashtra government. It had challenged the HC order on the ground of erroneous interpretation of law.
However, the SC bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and S.C. Sharma upheld the HC order. Notably, the state’s appeal was dismissed without even issuing notice to the Dalit couple, meaning that the court did not even find it a fit case to hear the other side.
“We have heard counsel for the petitioner (state) at length. We do not find any merit in the special petition (appeal). Therefore, the special leave petition is dismissed,” says the SC order uploaded on the court website this week.
The apex court order marks a decisive moment for members of the SC/ST community, as it extends legal protection to their intellectual and creative pursuits that lack a physical existence but are nonetheless valuable. By upholding the HC order, the SC has also imposed an additional obligation on the state to provide relief in case such work related to the profession of an SC/ST community member is stolen or damaged.
The SC/ST Act is a special legislation meant to protect members of marginalised communities who are identified by the states and the Centre and notified as SCs and STs. The law provides both criminal and civil remedies to SCs and STs in case they face atrocities or are oppressed. Offences defined under the Act are non-bailable and only a designated special court can hear criminal cases registered on account of any violation of the law.
Section 15A of the Act details the rights of victims and witnesses. Sub-section 2 of Section 15A says that a victim shall be treated with fairness, respect and dignity and with due regard to any special needs that arise because of the victim’s age or gender or educational disadvantage or poverty.
Rule 12 framed under the law deals with measures to be taken by the district administration in case a member of the SC/ST community faces any atrocity or suffers a loss. Sub-rules (4) and (5) are about monetary relief that should be provided to such victims, after assessing the loss of life and damage caused to their property during an incident.
Also Read: SC didn’t answer key question in preamble case. Does 42nd Amendment pass democracy test?
The case at hand
The HC judgment, having far-reaching implications for the SC/ST community, came on a petition that was filed by Dalit couple Dr Kshipra Kamlesh Uke and Dr Shiv Shankar Das, following theft of their research work that they had undertaken in 2014 in Nagpur. It was a self-funded research project on socio-political awareness among youth in Nagpur. In the process they had collected over 500 survey samples from various educational institutions.
In 2019, while the couple were out of the city for their research, their landlord’s son, who belonged to a higher caste, in connivance with the Bajaj Nagar police station, broke into their flat and stole their laptops that contained the research material, resulting in complete loss of their raw research data, according to submissions made before the HC by the couple.
The couple lodged a criminal case, besides filing a complaint with the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC), seeking action and recommendations. Since there was no progress there, the couple in 2021 moved the Bombay High Court for its intervention. By a judgment in March 2022, the HC directed the NCSC to complete the inquiry on the couple’s complaint.
In compliance with the HC order, the commission concluded its inquiry and forwarded a report to the district magistrate, asking him to consider the demand for monetary compensation for the loss of the couple’s research work.
Apart from that, the DM was asked to constitute a committee under the chairmanship of the joint commissioner of police to probe the theft and submit an action-taken report within a month to the commission. Compensation according to the SC/ST Act was also to be provided within seven days.
While the DM followed all the recommendations, the commission’s suggestion to compensate the couple in respect of damage to their intellectual property was not accepted.
The police investigation led to filing of a chargesheet against the accused in the case before a special court hearing SC/ST Act cases, while Rs 4.5 lakh of the sanctioned compensation of Rs 6 lakh was disbursed to the couple.
This monetary relief, however, did not take into account the destruction of their research work.
The DM denied the couple further financial assistance on the ground there was no provision under Section 15A of the SC/ST Act to compensate for theft or destruction of data, according to their submissions made before the HC.
Aggrieved, the couple went back to the HC for relief, arguing that the SC/ST Act envisaged a compensatory scheme for SC/ST members in case they faced atrocities. The couple referred to Section 15A of the Act and sub-rules (4) and (5) of Rule 12 of the rules framed under it to claim relief from the state on account of the loss they suffered due to theft of their research work.
The Maharashtra government opposed the petition, raising doubts over its maintainability and sought its rejection at the threshold.
What HC said
Pronouncing relief to the Dalit couple, the HC critically examined the term “property” and disagreed with the state for giving a “narrow” definition to it.
It noted that the law did not define the word, and in the absence of a definition, it must be given a plain and literal meaning. Hence, it went on to give a “meaningful interpretation” to the word in Section 15A and Rule 12, and said that the provisions do not admit any exclusion to forms of property and would, thus, have to be given a wider and purposeful meaning.
It, therefore, declared that “property” would include immovable and movable assets, whether tangible or intangible or in any form that is capable of being valued.
Intellectual property contained in the form of data or electronic material or any other material contained in a soft copy or digital form that may have been a subject matter of crime or offence under the SC/ST Act would also be covered under this definition, the HC said.
Even though intellectual property lacks physical existence, it is capable of valuation for the purpose of deciding compensation under the SC/ST Act, the HC held, while asking the DM in Nagpur to take a decision on grant of relief to the couple within three months.
(Edited by Nida Fatima Siddiqui)
Also Read: As SC Collegium considers proposal to tackle nepotism, how the bar views the possible move