IPR Law And Atrocities Act: Intersectionality Of Identity Politics And Knowledge Economy

On 24 January 2025, a seminal judgement on the scope of intellectual property law and its correlation with human rights and criminal law came from the Supreme Court. In the case titled The Principal Secretary Government of Maharashtra & Anr. vs. Kshipra Kamlesh Uke & Ors.^[1] the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the Government of Maharashtra and upheld the decision of the Bombay High Court wherein the scope and protection given by the Atrocities Act was expanded by interpreting the word “property” to include intangible assets like intellectual property. Thus, incorporating intellectual property theft as part of the Atrocities Act.^[2]

The facts of the case are that two Dalit researchers filed a case alleging caste-based atrocities and prayed for compensation for the theft of their intellectual property. The judgement's finding arose from the denial of compensation by the National Commission for Scheduled Castes for the damage to their academic research. The contention of the petitioners before the Bombay High Court was that the word 'property' under section 15A(11)(d) of the Atrocities Act must be read to include both tangible and intangible assets like intellectual property. The said section lays down the duty of the State to provide relief in case of death or damage to the property of any member of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes. The Bombay High Court deliberated on the meaning of 'property' by quoting from legal jurisprudence and substantive provisions of the IPC. The Court finding substance in the contentions of the petitioners gave an expansive meaning to the term 'property' under the Atrocities Act to include both tangible and intangible property.^[3] The same was upheld by the Supreme Court in the judgment dated 24.01.2025.

The impact of this judgment goes far beyond merely expanding the meaning of property under the Atrocities Act. The impact is twofold, firstly it brings forth the gaping holes in the legal system when it comes to giving meaningful protection to the works being created by the historically backward classes in India. Secondly, it is a conversation starter for legal scholarship on the confluence of human rights and intellectual property rights in India

The landmark Indira Sawhney vs Union of India^[4] judgment envisioned the upliftment of the historically backward classes by integrating them into the knowledge economy. However mere integration would be of no meaning if their hard work, their research and their scholarship is not given the due protection. This judgement brings forth the exigent nature of studying the interdependency of legal fields when it comes to practical applications of statutes like the Atrocities Act. The judgement is on ode to the scholarship being produced by people belonging to the historically backward classes of India. The expansive meaning to the word 'property' given by the Hon'ble court to include intangible assets like intellectual property under the Atrocities Act recognizes the fact that the intellectual exercise undertaken by people belonging to the historically disadvantaged sections of the society is of value and worth protecting. The facts of the case laid bare the fault lines in the society, an upper caste landlord attacking the home of his Dalit tenants and purloining their research work in a bid to harm them showed the need for this expansive interpretation. The actions of the landlord show that we have still not freed ourselves from the haunted past of caste discrimination despite repeated affirmative actions carried out by successive governments. This case shows the new pattern of discrimination that the historically disadvantaged sections in India might face. As majority of them get access to education and resources to build a better life, damaging their intellectual assets would cause more harm to their will and determination than destruction of their tangible assets. This judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court will act as a precedent to severely punish such abhorrent actions in the future. The bitter truth is that we surely have come far when it comes to the upliftment of the SC/ST community but there is still a long way to go to achieve equity and harmony between classes in India.

Another aspect, though not elaborated upon in the judgment but worth exploring as it revolves around the same subject matter, is the ability of intellectual property law to protect the creations/inventions made by people belonging to the disadvantaged communities. Laurence R. Helfer in his paper on human rights and intellectual property made a striking observation by stating that these two subjects have been “historical strangers”^[5] as they were never studied together in legal scholarship. However recently, Helfer points out, that they have become 'intimate bedfellows'^[6] as the importance of the relation between these two subjects is being acknowledged not only by legal scholarship but also by international bodies.^[7] One of the reasons why these two fields were polar opposites is because primarily intellectual property law has always been analyzed through the lens of economics. The focus largely has been on the fact that unless protected there will be no incentive for people to create and add to the growth of society.^[8] In this economic lens the creators are grouped together as a unanimous group ignoring their diversity. The challenges different creators from different parts of society might face to even cross the threshold of protection under IP law gets ignored. The pattern of IP law neutrality harming the intertest of minority community can be seen across societies. In the United States legal scholarship has pointed out gaping holes in intellectual property law which disadvantaged women, African Americans and people of the indigenous community.^[9] KJ Greene in her paper on Intellectual Property and the Intersection of Race and Gender has discussed as to how the very structure of copyright law disadvantaged the minority communities in America. According to Greene the idea/expression dichotomy protected only the expression of ideas and kept raw ideas out of the domain of IP protection. Thereby failing black artists whose work was used as inspiration by many, so much so that their works became an idea itself and thus not worthy of copyright protection. Even copyright's fixation standard has disadvantaged minority groups because often the works of indigenous communities are not written down but passed through word of mouth.^[10] I elaborated on the same in my previous work on providing copyright protection to religious symbols and folklores.^[11] This conundrum happens because the focus and intention of intellectual property law is not to provide a level playing field to creators from all walks of life, it is just to incentivize creators to create and inventors to invent.

However, across the word people who have been disadvantaged by the neutrality in intellectual property law are taking the reins in their hand by indulging in IP activism. The case at hand is a prime example of individuals from disadvantaged communities calling attention to their knowledge and advocating for the protection of their scholarship where it is due. This case serves as an example that intellectual property law intersects with human rights and criminal law and cannot work in isolation when it impacts the society at large. The Supreme Court by this judgment has reiterated what Madhavi Sunder pointed out way back in 2006 in her paper IP3 that intellectual property should not be seen only as niche area of law when in fact it has the power to be used as a tool for “recognition, redistribution, development and human rights”. ^[12]

The author is a practicing Advocate at the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Views are personal.