Supreme Court ruling sets a precedent to protect marginalised communities within the knowledge economy

The litigation that led to the ruling was initiated by Kshipra Kamlesh Uke and Shiv Shankar Das, who are both socio-political researchers on caste. They were robbed of their critical research materials—research manuscripts, research data, academic certificates and marksheets, publications, laptops, pen drives, camera etc,—allegedly by their landlord when they rose to prominence as Dalit activists in Nagpur in 2018.

While the criminal proceedings remain pending before the trial court, Uke and Das approached the Bombay High Court seeking a just assessment of compensation payable for damaging property under Section 15A (11)(d) of the Atrocities Act read with Rule 12(1) of the 1995 Rules.

Their assessment for damages based on the investment of their money, time, and labour, the setback to their careers, and future employability due to loss of data, ran into crores. The state contested these claims, on the ground of unreasonableness and the restrictions interpreted within the law.  The Bombay HC reportedly dismissed the contention with an observation that the claims were not unreasonable given their qualifications and the value of their intellectual labour.

The HC’s first principles-based interpretation of the term “property” in the Atrocities Act, to include “intellectual property”, carries profound implications for academia and beyond. The state challenged the said interpretation before the Supreme Court on the ground that the existing legal framework provides no method to compute the compensation payable for intellectual property. Responding to the submission, the apex court has orally observed that in such a case the law will take its own course—where there is no statute or rule, the common law will apply; just because there is no rule does not mean that there is no right (one of us was virtually present during the hearing).

By acknowledging intellectual property as a valuable asset, the SC’s ruling reinforces the importance of safeguarding the contributions of marginalised communities. It sets a precedent for recognising and compensating for the loss of intellectual work, particularly for Dalit and Adivasi scholars, whose academic and creative efforts often go unrecognised or are misappropriated.

Additionally, it signals a shift toward stricter accountability for plagiarism, unauthorised use of research, and misrepresentation of authorship. In the coming years, this ruling could pave the way for the advancement of anti-caste jurisprudence ensuring that intellectual contributions from historically disadvantaged communities receive due respect, protection, and compensation. The verdict is reassuring as more Dalits and Adivasis are turning towards academia and creative arts to participate in cultural production as a source of dignity and power.

The nature of caste discrimination has evolved with urbanisation and liberalisation, shifting from overt social segregation to more subtle, systemic, and institutionalised forms of exclusion. As people migrated to cities in search of economic opportunities and education, caste discrimination did not disappear—it transformed.

The phenomena of neo-casteism — which seeks to justify, reinforce, and perpetuate the caste privileges of the oppressor castes in a constitutional democracy — primarily operates culturally. Therefore, the knowledge economy becomes a battlefield where Dalits and Adivasis are left vulnerable to mentally and financially debilitating crimes such as intellectual appropriation, erasure, and theft.

As India’s only hate crime law, the Atrocities Act was enacted to protect SC/STs from certain crimes motivated by caste prejudices and provide rehabilitation for victims of atrocities. Given the Act’s distinctive role in addressing caste-based violence, it is imperative that courts interpret it through a contemporary lens — one that acknowledges the evolving manifestations of caste discrimination in modern society, as rightly followed by the courts in this case.

Furthermore, this landmark verdict departs from the broader judicial trend of restrictively interpreting the Atrocities Act. Notably, Section 8 establishes a reverse burden of proof, shifting the onus onto the accused to prove their innocence. However, courts have increasingly undermined this statutory safeguard by prioritising concerns over potential misuse rather than ensuring substantive justice for victims. This judicial departure is particularly concerning given the low conviction rates under the Act, which suggest not misuse but systemic barriers to justice. As the then Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud observed, many caste atrocities remain underreported due to fear of retribution from dominant-caste groups, lack of legal awareness, and police apathy, further reinforcing the need for a robust judicial commitment to the act’s objectives rather than a restrictive approach that risks rendering it ineffective.

It is hoped that Dalits and Adivasis are inspired to assert knowledge as power. This may of course cause a lot of resentment in a caste society, propelling more innovative ways to exclude and obstruct Dalits and Adivasis. Uke and Das’s litigation is an example of using law as a tool for social change and empowerment. Their fight to have their intellectual property valued in crores is a hat tip to Rohith Vemula’s anguish when he wrote: “Never was a man treated as a mind. As a glorious thing made up of stardust.”

The writers are lawyers working on gender justice, institutional discrimination, land rights of marginalized groups and digital rights