?127 crore compensation for intellectual property loss: Dalit researchers on 15-month delay say, “If we were Brahmins, Maharashtra government would have paid by now”

JNU researchers Kshipra Uke and Shiv Shankar Das had also proposed to form an expert panel of eminent economists – Professor Sukhdev Thorat, Dr. Bhalchandra Mungekar and Professor Narendra Jadhav – to assess the loss of their intellectual property.

Geetha Sunil Pillai

Nagpur- Dalit researchers Dr. Kshipra Uke and Dr. Shiv Shankar Das, who set a legal precedent in India to get intellectual property recognised as a compensable asset – have been waiting for justice for the last 15 months.

On 10 November 2023, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court ruled in their favour and ordered the Maharashtra government to compensate them for the loss caused due to the theft of their research data.

Despite the Supreme Court dismissing the Maharashtra government’s special leave petition (SLP) on January 24, 2025, the state government is dilly-dallying in complying with the Bombay High Court’s direction to compensate them for their stolen research. Instead of ensuring compliance of the order, the Nagpur district administration has remained inactive.

Most recently, on February 10, the couple sent a formal mail to the Principal Secretary of Social Welfare, Maharashtra, demanding immediate compensation as per clause 36-E and section 15A-11(D) of Schedule I of PoA Rule 12(4).

In an exclusive conversation with The Mooknayak, they clarified their stance: “We will wait for three to four weeks maximum. If the government does not act, we will initiate contempt proceedings.”

However, the Dalit couple says the delay is not due to the huge compensation amount of Rs 127 crore but because of their ‘caste identity’.

“The Maharashtra government is very wealthy, allocates huge sums for infrastructure, roads and schools. It is India’s largest economy. Then why can’t they compensate us? Rs 100 crore is not a big amount for them,” says Shivshankar Das.

“If this claim had been made by a Brahmin or a person from a higher caste, the government would have agreed without hesitation – perhaps not even challenged the high court’s decision in the Supreme Court. But because this demand has come from the so-called ‘untouchables’, it is being opposed,” said Kshipra.

The couple, who fought their own case in the Bombay high court, have a deep legal understanding that comes from closely studying hundreds of cases under the Scheduled Castes/Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Drawing a comparison with the Hathras gangrape case, where the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court had questioned the Uttar Pradesh government on why it denied government jobs to the victim’s family when such facilities were given to upper caste people, Dr Das said: “The victims had sought rehabilitation and government jobs in Delhi or Noida. But the Uttar Pradesh government expressed its inability to provide government jobs. The court’s response was remarkable. The court said, ‘You gave jobs to Tiwari and Gupta without any law or provision, why not here?'”

Questioning the Maharashtra government’s hesitation, Dr Uke said, “If Maharashtra claims to have made India the world’s third largest economy, what does Rs 127 crore mean to them? And yet, this amount hardly compensates for our actual losses – because there are some losses that cannot be measured by any court.” Kshipra said, “We have not thrown any figure in the air; we have submitted detailed calculations to assess our loss. Despite this, it seems inadequate. The Bombay High Court held that considering our education and the loss we have suffered, the amount quoted by us is not unreasonable. The court gave a clear direction to the government to consider our demand.”

Even the Maharashtra government had acknowledged the atrocities against the Dalit couple as a ‘unique and rare’ case. This acknowledgement is significant, especially because the deputy secretary of the government had sought guidance from the joint secretary of the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment on September 6, 2019. The letter revealed that the state government was confused about how to award compensation, as the Scheduled Castes/Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act 2015 did not have specific provisions for it. This uncertainty led the state to seek directions from the central government.

The government kept taking dates after dates

Since the High Court order in writ petition 759/2022 on November 10, 2023, directing the District Magistrate (DM) to investigate the 10-point demands of the petitioners, the Maharashtra government has repeatedly sought extension of the deadline, leading to non-compliance of the order even after more than 15 months. Despite multiple extensions, the DM has not been able to complete the investigation.

On March 14, 2024, the state government first sought 9 months to complete the investigation. Considering the parliamentary elections and the DM’s significant stake in the election process, the court granted a 3-month extension, with clear instructions that the petitioners should be informed before moving the court for any further extension.

“The first extension to the government was given by the court without hearing our side. So when time was sought again in the next hearing, we protested,” said Kshipra.

At the next hearing on 14 June 2024, the state sought an extension of 6 months, saying they needed more time. The petitioners vehemently opposed this and said that an extension cannot be sought to challenge the court’s order. However, citing the district collector’s preoccupation with parliamentary elections and the code of conduct as the reason for the delay, the court granted an additional 5 months.

At the third hearing on 21 November 2024, the state once again sought an extension of 6 months. The petitioners opposed this, but the court found that the only real reason for the delay was the DM’s preoccupation with the assembly elections and government work. As a result, the court granted a final extension of 8 weeks, which meant that the order had to be complied with by 16 January 2025.

But even after the deadline expired on 16 January, the officials remain undecided. “Since then the collector has held two meetings with us, yet he seems to be at a loss to figure out how to assess the damage we have suffered,” says Dr Uke.

Collector’s committee failed to assess intellectual property losses?

In compliance with the court order, the Nagpur district magistrate had some time ago constituted a committee to examine the demands. Kshipra and Shiv Shankar strongly criticised the committee’s failure to assess their losses and comply with the 10-point direction issued by the high court.

“While the case was going on, the state never denied that we had suffered huge losses. The government raised two objections to our claim: first, that the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act provides compensation only for tangible property – such as house or movable property – and does not apply to intellectual property or research data. Second, they argued that our losses were ‘incalculable’, claiming that the government had no way to calculate intangible losses,” Dr Uke said.

To counter this, Dr Uke and Dr Das themselves proposed two concrete methods of assessing the damage to their intellectual property, which were considered by the court:

The court order clearly directed the collector to review the calculations they had made in preparing the compliance report and refer to the pages where these methods were explained.

In compliance with the order, the collector constituted a committee of Nagpur University faculty members to assess the damages. However, the committee failed to provide a definitive assessment.

“As per our knowledge, the committee suggested instrumental damages of Rs 15 lakh. But strangely, despite filing several affidavits and applications, the state never mentioned this recommendation in court,” Dr Uke revealed.

“Why? Because they simply don’t want to officially record any figures. It seems they are comfortable giving us a mere ?5,000-?10,000 – which they think is ‘fair’ – rather than acknowledging our actual losses,” Shipra said sarcastically.

The Maharashtra government had also described the atrocities against the Dalit couple as a ‘unique and rare’ case.

Why did they replace experts with university teachers? – Couple questions government’s intentions

The couple also strongly questioned the collector’s selection of Nagpur University teachers to assess their intellectual property losses, calling it a deliberate attempt to undermine the credibility and accuracy of the assessment.

“Why did they bring in local university teachers? They don’t have the expertise to assess our losses, and more importantly, they can be easily influenced. These teachers are not even at the level of government officials, let alone experts in intellectual property valuation,” said Dr Das.

The couple had actively suggested the inclusion of three eminent economists and academicians – all leading policymakers and stalwarts in their fields – in the committee.

1. Professor Sukhdev Thorat – former UGC chairman and leading economist
2. Dr Bhalchandra Mungekar – former vice-chancellor of Mumbai University, held key roles in RBI and Planning Commission
3. Professor Narendra Jadhav – former Rajya Sabha MP, economist and academician

All three experts are from the Dalit community and have significant experience in policymaking and governance, making them highly qualified to objectively assess the financial and intellectual scale of the losses suffered.

“Why doesn’t the Maharashtra government form a panel with these experts to assess our losses?” Dr Uke asks challengingly. “Let them examine our calculations – if they find the amount we have quoted or our methods of assessment unreasonable, we will reconsider. But how can we accept an assessment made by ordinary university teachers who have neither expertise nor authority in the matter?”

Dalit couple gets new identity after historic win, thanks ‘The Mooknayak’

The courage and intelligence of this couple, who set an example by getting judicial recognition of intellectual property as an asset in SC/ST atrocities case, is being discussed everywhere. Dr. Kshipra Uke and Dr. Shiv Shankar Das are constantly receiving phone calls, congratulatory messages. Messages are coming in their mailbox and social media handles from all over the world.

“We never thought that our fight would evoke such a wide response. Many major media houses covered our story, but the way ‘The Mooknayak’ reported first helped our community understand the deep importance of this issue. Thank you very much!” the couple said, overwhelmed by the response.

Anyway, the latest development in this fight for compensation is that the Nagpur Collector has forwarded their letter to the Principal Secretary of the Social Welfare Department. Now the matter has reached the ministry level, and the couple is keeping an eye on the next step of the Maharashtra government.

However, they are firm on their stance: “If India fails to uphold the rule of law and deliver justice, we will not hesitate to take our case to international agencies,” the couple reiterated.

After the Supreme Court verdict, the question now is: will Maharashtra protect justice, or will these Dalit researchers have to fight another legal battle to claim their rights?

Courtesy : Hindi News