In Principal Secretary, Government of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Kshipra Kamlesh Uke & Ors.1, the Supreme Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging a judgment of the Bombay High Court in which it was held that the loss of intellectual property falls within the purview of “damage to property” for the purpose of providing relief to victims of atrocities under the Prevention of SC/ST Atrocities Act.
The High Court had held that the term “property” must be given a broad interpretation, emphasizing that since the Act does not explicitly exclude any form of property, it cannot be construed in a narrow or restrictive manner.
Brief Facts
The petitioners, Ph.D. degree holders from Jawaharlal Nehru University, had been engaged in a personal research project in Nagpur since 2014, funded entirely at their own expense. Their study focused on socio-political awareness among the youth in the city, during which they collected over 500 survey samples from students across various educational institutions.
They alleged that while they were away, the son of their landlord forcibly entered their premises by breaking the locks and stole their raw research data, survey forms, and processed data by taking their laptops. Upon their return, they 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.
The central question before the court was whether the petitioners were entitled to claim compensation or damages for the loss of intellectual property in the form of data collected by them under Section 15A(11)(b) read with sub-Rules (4) and (5) of Rule 12 of the Atrocities Rules.
At the outset, the court examined the objective of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It noted that the Act was enacted to prevent atrocities against individuals belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. However, its purpose extends beyond mere prevention—it also seeks to provide relief and rehabilitation to victims of such offenses.
A plain reading of the Act’s objectives makes it abundantly clear that the State has a dual responsibility: not only to prevent atrocities against the SC/ST communities but also to compensate them for any losses suffered as a result of such offenses.
Statutory Scheme
Section 15A of the Act imposes a duty on the State to provide protection to witnesses and victims. It also mandates the State to establish a scheme to ensure the effective implementation of the rights and entitlements of victims. Additionally, under clause (d) of sub-section (11) of Section 15A, the State is responsible for providing relief in cases of death, injury, or damage to property.
Rule 12 of the Atrocities Rules further places an obligation on the District Magistrate, Superintendent of Police, and the Special Court to ensure the proper implementation of the Act’s provisions. More specifically, sub-rule (4) of Rule 12 requires the District Magistrate to put in place administrative and other necessary arrangements to ensure that victims receive relief within seven days. Furthermore, sub-rule (5) states that any relief granted by the District Magistrate for damage to property shall be in addition to any other right to claim compensation available under any other law.
The petitioners contended that the phrase “damage to property” under Rule 12 of the Atrocities Rules should be interpreted broadly to include data, electronic materials, and intellectual rights associated with such data, whether in digital or electronic form. Accordingly, they argued that they were entitled to compensation for the loss incurred when their intellectual data was either damaged or stolen.
On the other hand, the respondent countered that the phrase “damage to property” should be understood in a more restrictive sense, applying only to tangible or physical property. They asserted that intangible assets or materials contained in digital form would not fall within the scope of this provision.
Analysis
At the outset, the court noted that relief under clause (d) of sub-section (11) of Section 15A is provided in three specific situations: death, injury, or damage to property. Since the term “property” has not been defined in the Act, the court emphasized that it must be interpreted in its plain and literal sense.
Based on this reasoning, the court observed that the term “property” would encompass both movable and immovable property, whether tangible or intangible, or in any form whatsoever, as long as it is capable of being valued.
The court held that “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.”
The court further observed that this interpretation is reinforced by sub-rule (5) of Rule 12, which explicitly states that the relief granted under this rule for damage to property is in addition to any right to claim compensation under any other law.
It further added that under sub- Rule (7) of this Rule, after the District Magistrate has sent a report of relief granted by him to the Special Court, the Special Court is within its powers, if it concludes that such compensation is not adequate or sufficient, it may order to make a higher amount as compensation to the victim.
The court also referred section 22 of the Indian Penal Code where the term movable propert is defined as corporeal property of every description except land or things attached to earth or anything permanently fastened to things attached to earth.
It held that “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.”
Based on the above discussion, the court observed 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.
It concluded 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 in terms of the provisions of Section 15A read with Rule 12 of the Atrocities Act and Rules made thereunder.
1Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 49832/2024
