‘Supreme Court of India’s verdict protects rights of CDWD in Modern Economy’
On Friday, the Supreme Court of India, the country's Apex court, dismissed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the Government of Maharashtra, one of the largest states in India, upholding a landmark judgment by the Bombay High Court. This judgment recognized intellectual property damage as compensable under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The case was heard by a bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.
The case was initiated by two Scheduled Caste researchers, Dr. Kshipra Kamlesh Uke and Dr. Shiv Shankar Das, both Ph.D. holders from Jawaharlal Nehru University. Since 2014, they have been conducting a self-funded research project focused on socio-political awareness among youth in Nagpur, collecting over 5,000 survey samples from various educational institutions.
The Global Forum of Communities Discriminated Based on Work and Descent had been actively monitoring the case since it was brought before the Supreme Court for hearing. Following the ruling, the Global Forum of Communities Discriminated on Work and Descent conducted an email interview with the respondents.
Following are the excerpts:
How significant do you think the Bombay High Court's recognition of intellectual property as a compensable asset under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is for researchers, especially from marginalized communities?
The decision of the Supreme Court of India on January 24, 2025 upholding the Bombay High Court's Judgment is a significant step towards ensuring that the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 effectively protects the rights and interests of marginalized communities in the modern economy, where intellectual property plays an increasingly crucial role. For us, the Bombay High Court's recognition of intellectual property as a compensable asset under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 holds vital legal and social implications summarized in the following 4 points:
* Legal Precedent for Protecting Intellectual Property of the Marginalized: This judgment establishes a crucial legal precedent or common law, expanding the scope of compensable assets beyond traditional physical/tangible property. It acknowledges the economic value of intellectual property especially possessed by the individuals and communities from the historically marginalized groups (SCs & STs) whose livelihoods, professions or occupations heavily rely on these assets. While upholding the Bombay High Court's judgement and dismissing the Maharashtra state's argument that intellectual property doesn't qualify for compensation under PoA Act, the Supreme Court Judge Hon'ble Mrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathna made an important observation–“if rule doesn't apply, statute does not apply, the common law will apply…because there is no rule does not mean there is no right”.
* Protecting the Vulnerable Communities and the Act: The SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 aims to protect the communities that are historically discriminated by work and descent in India specifically when education is developing among the SCs/STs and they are being targeted and terrorized. By including intellectual property, the court reinforces the Act's purpose of ensuring social and economic justice for these communities in contemporary scenarios.
* Addressing Possible Fields of Exploitation: This judgment addresses the Intellectual property damage/theft or infringement which might result in devastating consequences for individuals and communities, particularly those from marginalized backgrounds who may lack the resources to defend their rights. This ruling provides a legal avenue to seek redress and compensation for such harm in future.
* Promoting Innovation: Recognizing the value of intellectual property encourages creativity and innovation within the marginalized/dalit communities. Knowing that their intellectual creations are legally protected and compensable can incentivize them to pursue their creative endeavors/careers and contribute to their socio-economic development.
A large part of the court debate seemed to focus on defining intellectual property. What challenges did you face in convincing the authorities and the courts to recognize and quantify the value of your intellectual property loss?
The court debate involved some focus in defining the intellectual property which is intangible in nature or having no-physical existence. The reason for this was to establish a legal framework for the determination of compensation right within the Act considering the novelty of the matter where the state had taken a stand that intangible property has no existence within the SC/ST (PoA) Act.
Regarding challenges, one of the greatest hurdles faced by us in the matter was absence of any legal precedence. Therefore, to overcome it and convince the court we relied on a broad interpretation of the provisions of the SC/ST (PoA) Act and its meanings with careful legal arguments. We cautiously avoided committing any mistake during our legal struggle in spite of facing many threats from the state/police.
Having no law background or experience of the court proceedings we argued our case in-person, which was a challenge in itself. The nature of the crime was so obvious that the Government of Maharashtra couldn't escape from recognizing the loss of our intellectual property and as the state police was involved in the crime, henceforth responsible for the loss. The main challenge was the narrow interpretation/understanding of the Government that the compensation for such loss doesn't qualify within the SC/ST (PoA) Act on two grounds–(A) the purpose of the act is to protect or compensate physical property like a house or moveable items only and it excludes intellectual property or research data in intangible form and (B) the government is incapable to assess or quantify the intangible/intellectual property losses of the victims to determine the compensation.
To refute the above understanding/argument of the Maharashtra Government in the court, firstly, we relied on section 2(1)[f] of SC/ST (PoA) Act, IPC- 22 & 24 and Section 3 (26) & 3 (36) of General Clauses Act, 1897, which convinced the court that the intellectual property as a movable property comes within the definition of property under PoA Act. Secondly, for the purpose of the quantification of the loss of our intellectual property/data we provided two methods to the court i.e., extrinsic/instrumental value (Rs. 3,91,85,000/-) and intrinsic value (Rs. 127,55,11,600/-). We could compellingly demonstrate to the court that the loss of our intellectual property not only led us to profound personal and economic hardships as we lost our jobs/livelihoods, but it has critically disrupted our missionary project to revive the Political School of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar.
The entire legal journey, as we all know, was time consuming and stressful but at this stage we must thank the High Court Judges who conducted multiple hearings in the matter and heard us patiently for hours together and at some points even appreciated us for the quality of arguments we made before them.
The Hon'ble Court took about 4 months' time to pronounce the judgement after it was reserved in July 2023. Now, as the Supreme Court of India has also endorsed the judgment of the Bombay High Court, it is the state's responsibility to consider our valuation and provide appropriate compensation in cash or kind within the anti-caste legislation.
How do you think this judgment will affect the way intellectual property rights are perceived and protected in academia, particularly for the researchers from the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes?
This judgment will significantly impact the way in which intellectual property rights are perceived in academia, particularly for researchers from marginalized backgrounds (SCs & STs). It would empower and incentivize the marginalized students, scholars, researchers and activists by increasing awareness about their intellectual property rights and providing a stronger legal framework for protecting those rights. The judgement would act as a deterrent against the damage/theft of intellectual work created by the marginalized communities such as misappropriation of ideas, unauthorized use of their research data or denial of proper credit or authorship. In the near future, it could pave the way to register the cases/offences of research-theft or plagiarism under the SC/ST (PoA) Act. The ruling, in coming years, would ensure that these marginalized communities receive fair recognition and respect for their intellectual contributions and in case any damage is caused to their intellectual property then they would also be compensated for their losses.
What steps would you recommend for researchers, especially those from marginalized communities, to safeguard their intellectual property against similar incidents?
The first and the foremost thing that the marginalized communities should do is to acknowledge that their intellectual achievement and contribution is their “hard earned property” and it is both their duty as well as right to safeguard this valuable asset they possess. To establish intellectual property rights in a legal framework, the researchers need to substantiate the evidence of their research work as original and non-duplicable. The evidence of their work can be secured through their publications and also to some extent by storing/keeping it in emails, i-cloud etc. The demonstration of the originality of the research work would establish clear evidence for their ownership or right on it and if there is any infringement then a complaint must be filed in the police station. Our legal battle of 7 long years that concluded in the Apex Court was due to our strong sense of dignity, consistency and confidence in the provisions of the constitution and definitely the teachings of our hero–Babasaheb Ambedkar.
Also Read: India: Dalit researchers win landmark Intellectual Property Compensation in atrocity case