In 1946, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar sat in his study, surrounded by pages of his unfinished work, which was a forceful indictment of caste and structural disparities in Indian society. That book, which was intended to be a defining addition to his intellectual legacy, was never published. What’s the reason? It was supposedly destroyed in a fire at his home under dubious conditions. Whether by accident or intent, the loss was devastating — not only for Ambedkar, but for generations who may have taken strength and insight from that unfinished work. History repeats itself in quieter, less obvious ways. Marginalised voices, particularly those of Dalits, Adivasis, and other oppressed populations, have historically experienced both physical violence and intellectual erasure. Their ideas, studies, and creative expressions are ignored, destroyed, or stolen, depriving them not only of credit but also of the power that knowledge embodies. In today’s knowledge-driven society, intellectual property is more than just copyrights and patents; it is about identity, dignity, and the right to have one’s work recognised. When this type of property is taken away, it is not only theft. It is a form of systemic suppression, founded in the same forces that burnt Ambedkar’s manuscripts.
Introduction: Expanding the definition of property
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) have traditionally been viewed as a legal and commercial construct, designed to incentivise innovation and protect creators. Recently, the Supreme Court of India in Kshipra Kamlesh Uke & Ors. has broadened the definition of “property” under the SC/ST Act to include intellectual property. This groundbreaking shift reframes intellectual property theft not just as an economic dispute, but an atrocity when it is targeted towards the marginalised sections of the society. The court had acknowledged that knowledge production, irrespective of its field is inextricably tied to social structures, and its theft from vulnerable groups increases systemic discrimination.
The SC/ST Act: A Legal Foundation for Protection
The act was brought in the year 1989 to prevent atrocities against the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. This act not only criminalises physical violence but also covers various oppressions, wrongful dispossession of property being one of them. The Supreme Court’s recent interpretation of the term “property” to include intellectual property represents a change in the understanding of property right. The courts in past have recognised property as a mere tangible object. This expanded interpretation gives space for drivers of a knowledge driven economy, and emphasises that intellectual contributions hold equal economic and social value.
Case Analysis: A detailed Analysis of the SC’s Judgement in Kshipra Kamlesh Case
Dr. Kshipra Kamlesh Uke and her husband, Dr. Shiv Shankar Das, are Dalit scholars who dedicated years to producing extensive academic research on caste, social structures, and political awareness among marginalized communities. Their work wasn’t merely academic — it was a reflection of their lived experiences and a powerful challenge to the dominant caste narratives. In 2018, they found themselves at the centre of a violent confrontation. The landlord’s son, belonging to an upper caste, allegedly attempted to force them out of their rented residence in Nagpur. During the altercation, their laptops — containing original research data, manuscripts, and crucial academic work — were either stolen or destroyed. This loss was devastating, as their data included an extensive 2014 survey on “socio-political awareness amongst the youth of Nagpur,” comprising over 500 detailed samples collected from various educational institutions. For any researcher, such data represents more than just digital files — it’s intellectual labour, built over years, representing irreplaceable knowledge production. However, for Dalit scholars, this loss carried a deeper, systemic weight. It wasn’t just an attack on their work; it was an attack on their intellectual agency and their right to occupy academic space. The police refused to register the case, and they were reportedly met with indifference and bias when they approached law enforcement to file a complaint. This pattern of institutional neglect mirrors the broader systemic discrimination Dalits face when seeking justice. Left with no other option, the couple decided to represent themselves in court. The couple submitted a writ petition in accordance with the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Their legal argument was centred on the interpretation of “property” in Section 3(1)(f) of the SC/ST Act, which criminalises the wrongful dispossession or interference with the property of a member of a Scheduled Caste or Tribe. The primary issue at issue was whether intellectual property, which has been traditionally safeguarded under the Copyright Act and the Indian Penal Code, could be classified as “property” under the SC/ST Act, which was initially intended to safeguard tangible assets. The couple argued that intellectual property is as valuable as physical property in a knowledge-based economy, particularly for academicians whose academic careers, reputations, and economic stability are contingent upon their research output. They contended that the destruction of their data was not merely an act of theft, but a deliberate act of caste-based suppression, intended to drown out their intellectual contributions as Dalit academicians. According to the Maharashtra Government’s defence, the SC/ST Act was not intended to address intellectual property disputes, which should be resolved under existing copyright and theft regulations. They cautioned that the SC/ST Act could be abused in non-physical property disputes if the definition of “property” were expanded. On January 12, 2023, the Bombay High Court rendered a groundbreaking decision in favour of the couple. The SC/ST Act does not expressly define the term “property,” which results in ambiguity, as the court acknowledged. The court cited Section 22 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to resolve this issue, which defines “movable property” as any item that can be transported, including data. The court paved the way for a more comprehensive and inclusive interpretation of the SC/ST Act by connecting intellectual property to the broader definition of property in the IPC. The judgement acknowledged that the loss of intellectual property is not merely a personal calamity for Dalit scholars; it also perpetuates systemic caste-based exclusion from academia and public discourse. The court’s order to the Nagpur District Collector to evaluate the couple’s compensation claim represents an unprecedented recognition of intellectual labour as a protected form of property under the Atrocities Act. The Maharashtra Government appealed the decision by submitting a Special Leave Petition (SLP) to the Supreme Court of India. The petition was dismissed by a division bench of the Supreme Court, which was presided over by Justices B.V. Nagarathna and S.C. Sharma, on January 24, 2025. The Bombay High Court’s decision was upheld by the Court, which implied:
“We find no merit in the Special Leave Petition. The theft or destruction of intellectual property, when coupled with caste-based harassment, constitutes a violation of the SC/ST Act, warranting legal protection and compensation.”
This final affirmation from the Supreme Court solidified the legal recognition of intellectual property within the SC/ST Act, an unprecedented expansion of the definition of “property” in anti-discrimination law.
Intersectionality: Understanding overlapping oppressions
Kimberlé Crenshaw, a legal scholar, introduced the concept of intersectionality, which elucidates how several forms of oppression—including caste, class, and gender—intersect to generate distinctive vulnerabilities. Dalit creators are not only disadvantaged by economic barriers in the context of IPR, but they also experience structural caste-based exclusion, which exacerbates the inequity. For instance, dominant caste entrepreneurs who possess greater market networks may replicate the designs of Dalit artisans who specialise in traditional crafts. The exclusion of Dalit scholars from elite academic circles also facilitates the ease with which their work can be plagiarised without repercussions. In essence, the Supreme Court’s decision operationalises intersectionality by acknowledging that intellectual larceny against marginalised communities not only has economic repercussions but also perpetuates social hierarchies.
Global Comparisons: IPR and marginalised Knowledge Systems
The Indian judgement is consistent with international trends that acknowledge the plunder of knowledge from marginalised groups as a human rights violation. We will examine three significant global parallels:
- Biopiracy and Indigenous Knowledge:
Indigenous communities in the Global South have long opposed the plunder of traditional knowledge. The Neem patent case (1995) is a seminal example of this. Indian farmers protested a European patent on neem-based pesticides, a knowledge that had been used for centuries. The patent was ultimately revoked by the European Patent Office, which acknowledged the indigenous origin of the knowledge. The case is reminiscent of the Dalit experience, in which traditional knowledge, whether it be indigenous art, literature, or innovation, is appropriated without credit or compensation.
- Cultural Appropriation of African Americans:
African-American musicians and artists have historically been denied economic benefits and possession of their creations in the United States, as they were commercialised by white-owned companies. In India, Dalit art forms and literature are frequently appropriated by mainstream, dominant-caste creators, as evidenced by comparable patterns. The Supreme Court ruling establishes a legal framework to address cultural appropriation.
- African Patents of Indigenous Origin:
Multinational corporations in Kenya patented local agricultural innovations, including drought-resistant maize strains, thereby depriving local farmers of profits. This is indicative of the commercialisation of traditional Dalit and Adivasi knowledge, particularly in the fields of agriculture and medicine, without proper attribution.
Policy and Legal Recommendations: Steps Towards an Inclusive Knowledge Economy
In order for the Supreme Court’s ruling to be meaningfully enforced, structural reforms must be initiated. In order to more explicitly acknowledge knowledge that originates from marginalised communities, existing intellectual property laws must be amended to establish more accessible and less bureaucratic pathways for registration and enforcement. Additionally, the burden of proof in plagiarism cases involving SC/ST creators would be shifted, requiring the accused to demonstrate that they did not appropriate the work. This would serve to discourage larceny. Educational institutions should address systemic exclusion by promoting research on caste, intellectual property, and knowledge production and instituting reservation quotas in research bodies, in addition to legal reforms. Mentorship programs are indispensable for the empowerment of Dalit students in both STEM and humanities disciplines, thereby enabling them to surmount institutional biases. Marginalised creators require state-backed grants and royalty-sharing frameworks to ensure that communities benefit from the commercialisation of their knowledge, particularly in traditional medicine, agriculture, and crafts. This is important from an economic perspective. A knowledge economy that genuinely includes and uplifts marginalised communities can only be achieved through a combination of legal, educational, and economic reforms.
Article By: Jaivardhan Goyal
