‘Educated Dalits’—how these two words swung Bombay HC landmark verdict for 2 JNU scholars

Dalit couple Shiv Shankar Das and Kshipra Kamlesh Uke secure landmark compensation for intellectual property loss under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Sagrika Kissu

JNU Dalit scholars celebrating Supreme Court ruling on intellectual property rights under SC/ST Act

JNU scholars Shiv Shankar Das and Kshipra Uke fought their own case in the Bombay High Court, culminating in a landmark Supreme Court order on intellectual property rights | Photo: Special arrangement

New Delhi: At first glance, the Bombay High Court’s observation seemed strange. “Educated Dalits,” the judge remarked—but that short phrase changed everything for JNU scholars Shiv Shankar Das and Kshipra Kamlesh Uke. Unlike most cases the Bench had heard under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Das and Uke brought a different kind of atrocity case—a distinction that led to a first-of-its-kind Supreme Court order on intellectual property rights.

The Supreme Court upheld the Bombay High Court’s ruling, recognising intellectual property (including its digital form) under the SC/ST Act.

This ruling sets an important precedent that could potentially serve as a historic deterrent in the Dalit battle against everyday discrimination.

Das and Uke argued their case against the State of Maharashtra at the Bombay High Court. On one side were administration officials, police officers, and civil authorities; on the other, the two scholars seeking compensation for the alleged theft of their laptop, passports, decades of research, and data essential for restarting Dr BR Ambedkar’s Training School for Entrance to Politics in Nagpur—as well as for an attempted eviction by their landlord’s son. Their Dalit-JNU identity in a Brahmin residential neighbourhood in Nagpur was met with suspicion.

Uke recalled that the court had remarked, “Under the SC/ST Atrocities Act, we usually get uneducated people. Your case is rare and unique,” as she spoke on the phone from an undisclosed location.

On 24 January, in a single-sentence order, the Supreme Court dismissed the Maharashtra government’s appeal and upheld the Bombay High Court judgment, thereby expanding the ambit of “property” under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The order recognised intellectual property—including its digital form—and awarded compensation to the couple for its theft.

While the ruling will not bring back their lost research, for the couple it is a satisfying end to a battle that upended their lives, affected their children, and strained their careers.

“It shifted the narrative of atrocity—from rural to urban, from uneducated to highly educated Dalits. It has redefined property under SC/ST Act. Intellectual property that Dalits possess can no longer be stolen or manipulated,” Uke said over the phone.

Background of JNU Dalit scholars’ case

In 2014, JNU scholars Das and Uke moved to Nagpur to revive Dr BR Ambedkar’s Training School for Entrance to Politics, which was established in 1956. They rented a one-bedroom flat in Deekshabhoomi—a historical site where Ambedkar embraced Buddhism in 1956.

For six years, they collected more than 500 survey samples from various educational institutions. However, in 2019 an ongoing dispute with their landlord—who belonged to the dominant caste—resulted in the theft of their laptops, books, and physical research materials. That’s when the fight began.

The couple traces the origins of this hostility to a protest rally they led following the suicide of PhD student Rohith Vemula in 2016. Videos of their march to the RSS office began circulating within the community, prompting the landlord to enquire about their caste.“And when we told them that we were Dalits, he asked, ‘Why didn’t you tell us before?’” recalled Das. “We said, ‘You never asked us, so we didn’t tell you.’”

According to the couple, that was when the landlord asked them to vacate, claiming that neighbours were not happy about Dalits living in a society dominated by Brahmins. They requested some time. At the same time, JNU was dominating national headlines with campus protests and the arrests of Umar Khalid, Anirban Bhattacharya, and Kanhaiya Kumar.

“Everyone rejected us because of our JNU education,” said Uke.

A few months later, in October 2016, the landlord died from an age-related illness, and his son assumed ownership. Soon after, he and a friend allegedly visited the couple and asked them to leave. At the time, Kshipra was eight months pregnant.

“I told the owner’s son that in this situation, we were not going to shift,” she recalled.

This situation continued until 2018, when the theft occurred. That year, while the couple was in Delhi, they received a call from the landlord asking for a meeting.

“We told him we were in Delhi and would return in a few days,” said Uke. But when they returned, they found that the lock on their door had been broken and replaced. Upon entering the house, they discovered that their laptop, books, and research material were missing.

They then went to the local police station and filed a complaint, accusing the landlord’s son of breaking and entering and theft. The Bajaj Nagar police filed an FIR against the landlord’s son and an accomplice on charges of criminal trespassing and violations under the SC/ST Act. He was arrested but was released on bail within days.

 “When we returned to Nagpur from Delhi, we had 700 kilos of books. The raw data we had gathered in 2014—coinciding with the Maharashtra Assembly and Lok Sabha elections on socio-political awareness among Nagpur’s youth—had vanished. Our degrees, laptops, and even passports were stolen,” said Das, recalling their helplessness after losing years of research.

Legal battle against intellectual property theft

With nothing left, the couple approached the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC), seeking a proper investigation and compensation for the loss of their intellectual property. When no progress was made, they filed a petition in the Bombay High Court, asking the court to direct the NCSC to act on their complaint.

A year later, in 2022, the high court ordered the NCSC to take action within six weeks, leading to the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT). A chargesheet was filed in a special court in Nagpur.

Meanwhile, district authorities agreed to provide Rs 5 lakh based on their complaint to the NCSC. When Uke and Das argued that the amount should have been higher, the authorities cited a lack of provisions under the SC/ST Act for intellectual property loss.

This injustice prompted the two scholars to return to the high court, seeking adequate compensation for the loss of their intellectual property. This time, they decided to represent themselves. They studied legal provisions, consulted lawyers, and conducted extensive research to prepare for the courtroom battle. It became a battle between two researchers and the state—for intellectual property rights under the SC/ST Atrocities Act.

The couple faced threats to withdraw their case and constantly feared that their laptops might be tampered with.

 “We fought the mighty state. We have seen cases like Rona Wilson and others in the [2018] Bhima Koregaon case, where incriminating evidence was planted through malware. Our laptops are not with us—you never know what will happen tomorrow,” said Das.

For years, they lived in perpetual fear, uncertain of what awaited them next. But that wasn’t the only cost; their ongoing court battle also took a toll on their personal lives—especially on their six-year-old daughter’s education.

“We didn’t enrol her in any school; all our time was consumed by fighting the case,” Uke said.

During one of the hearings, the high court asked them to propose a way for quantifying their losses, since the state had conceded.

But Uke and Das had already done the math. “It was simple,” said Das. “There were two types of losses—intrinsic and extrinsic. These included the money, time, and human resources we had invested to generate the data.”

On 10 November 2023, the Bombay High Court ruled in their favour, directing the Nagpur City Collector to assess the quantum of intellectual property damage within three months. Subsequently, the Maharashtra government appealed the decision in the Supreme Court.

Meena Kotwal, founder of the digital platform Mooknayak, said that the couple’s case and the Supreme Court’s order serve as a crucial lesson for those who discriminate based on caste.

“It will make people think a hundred times before discriminating against someone based on caste. It will also instil fear of the law. Had the couple not been educated, they wouldn’t have understood the country’s laws and their rights so well,” Kotwal said.

An extraordinary love story

Das and Uke met at JNU, where they were both active members of the United Students Dalit Forum, a cultural organisation on campus. Uke pursued a PhD in International Relations, specialising in American politics, while Das focused on the cultural politics of Buddhism in Uttar Pradesh.

Their relationship brought together two people from different states—Uke from Gadchiroli in Maharashtra, and Das from Muzaffarnagar in Uttar Pradesh—yet they found common ground in their fight against casteism.

“I fought elections for GSCASH [Gender Sensitisation Committee Against Sexual Harassment at JNU] and Shiv campaigned for me,” Kshipra laughed over the phone.

During long night conversations in their hostel room, they realised the need to revive the Babasaheb Politics School. With that vision in mind, they moved to Nagpur after submitting their PhD theses in 2014.

However, the fight is far from over. Now, Uke and Das are researching how to secure their compensation. Although both the Supreme Court and the Bombay High Court have ruled in their favour, they have yet to receive the funds they fought so hard for.

“Getting compensation is another fight we have to fight,” said Das.

But their vision for Babasaheb’s political school remains intact; the dream that brought them to Nagpur is very much alive.

 “We are finding ways to make this a reality,” said Uke.

 (Edited by Prashant)

Key Phases of the Case:

Initial Conflict:

Firstly, the Dalit couple—JNU scholars Shiv Shankar Das and Kshipra Kamlesh Uke—faced discrimination in a Brahmin-dominated neighbourhood in Nagpur.

They experienced the theft of valuable intellectual property, including laptops, passports, and research data.

The Legal Battle:

Next, the couple filed a petition in the Bombay High Court, choosing to represent themselves.

Their determination led to the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) and the eventual filing of a chargesheet against the alleged perpetrators.

Supreme Court Ruling:

Subsequently, on January 24, the Supreme Court issued a single-sentence order.

This order upheld the Bombay High Court’s decision and expanded the definition of “property” under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act to include digital intellectual property.

Implications and Future Impact:

Finally, the landmark ruling not only secured compensation for the intellectual property loss but also set an important precedent.

It paves the way for future cases and reinforces the legal protections against caste-based discrimination.

Courtesy : The Print

Note: This news is originally published in theprint.com and was used solely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes exclusively for Human Rights