Intersectionality of identity policy and knowledge economy

On January 24, 2025, a seminal judgment on the scope of the Intellectual Property Law and its correlation with Human Rights and Criminal Law came from the Supreme Court. In the case entitled The main secretary of Maharashtra and Anr. vs. KSHIPRA KAMLESH UKE & ORS.⁽¹⁾ The Supreme Court dismissed the special license petition presented by the Maharashtra government and confirmed the decision of the Superior Court of Bombay, where the scope and protection given by the Atrocities Law were extended by interpreting the word “property” to include intangible assets such as intellectual property. Therefore, incorporating the theft of intellectual property as part of the Law of Atrocities.⁽²⁾

The facts of the case are that two Dalit researchers presented a case claiming caste -based atrocities and prayed for compensation for the theft of their intellectual property. The finding of the sentence arose from the denial of compensation by the National Commission for castes scheduled for the damage to their academic investigation. The affirmation of the petitioners before the Superior Court of Bombay was that the word ‘property’ under section 15a (11) (d) of the law of atrocities must be read to include tangible and intangible assets such as intellectual property. This section establishes the duty of the State to provide relief in case of death or damage to the property of any member of the castes and programming tribes. The Superior Court of Bombay deliberated on the meaning of ‘property’ citing the legal jurisprudence and the substantive provisions of the CPI. The court that finds substance in the disputes of the petitioners gave an expansive meaning to the term ‘property’ under the law of atrocities to include tangible and intangible properties.⁽³⁾ The same was confirmed by the Supreme Court in the Judgment dated 24.01.2025.

The impact of this judgment goes far beyond simply expanding the meaning of the property under the law of atrocities. The impact is double, in the first place it brings open holes in the legal system when it comes to giving significant protection to the works created by historically backward classes in India. Second, he is a conversation initiator for the legal scholarship about the confluence of human rights and intellectual property rights in India

The reference point Indira Sawhney vs Union of India⁽⁴⁾ The trial imagined the elevation of historically backward classes by integrating them into the knowledge economy. However, mere integration made no sense if their arduous work, their research and their scholarship do not receive due protection. This judgment presents the demanding nature of studying the interdependence of legal fields when it comes to practical applications of statutes such as the Atrocities Law. The trial is in ODE to the scholarship produced by people belonging to the historically backward classes of India. The expansive meaning to the word ‘property’ given by the Honorable Court to include intangible assets such as intellectual property under the Law of Atrocities recognizes the fact that the intellectual exercise carried out by the people who belong to the historically disadvantaged sections of the company are of value and it is worth protecting. The facts of the case exposed the failures in society, an owner of the superior caste attacking the house of his Dalit tenants and stealing his research work in an attempt to damage them showed the need for this expansive interpretation. The owner’s actions show that we have not yet freed ourselves from the haunted past from caste discrimination despite the repeated affirmative actions taken to successive governments. This case shows the new discrimination pattern that historically disadvantaged sections could face in India. As most of them have access to education and resources to build a better life, damage their intellectual assets would cause more damage to their will and determination than the destruction of their tangible assets. This judgment of the Honorable Supreme Court will act as a precedent to severely punish such abhorrent actions in the future. The bitter truth is that we have surely gone far when it comes to the elevation 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, although it did not elaborate at the trial, but is worth exploring as it revolves around the same subject, is the capacity of the intellectual property law to protect the creations/inventions made by the people who belong to the disadvantaged communities. Laurence R. Helfer in his article on human rights and intellectual property made a surprising observation in stating that these two subjects have been “historical strangers”⁽⁵⁾ since they were never studied together in legal scholarship. However, recently, Helfer points out that they have become ‘intimate bed flóchicos’⁽⁶⁾ As the importance of the relationship between these two subjects is being recognized not only by legal erudition but also by international organizations.⁽⁷⁾ One of the reasons why these two fields were polar opposites is because mainly the intellectual property law has always been analyzed through the economy lens. The approach has largely focused on the fact that, unless it is protected, there will be no incentives for people to believe and add to society’s growth.⁽⁸⁾ In this economic lens, the creators are grouped as a unanimous group that ignores their diversity. The challenges of different creators from different parts of society could face even to cross the protection threshold under the law of Pi is ignored. The pattern of neutrality of the intellectual property law that harms the interest of the minority community can be seen in all societies. In the United States, legal scholarship has indicated open holes in the Intellectual Property Law that disadvantaged women, African Americans and people in the indigenous community.⁽⁹⁾ KJ Greene in his article on intellectual property and the intersection of race and gender has discussed how the structure of the copyright law at a disadvantage of minority communities in the United States. According to Greene, the Dicotomy IDEA/EXPRESSION protected only the expression of ideas and maintained raw ideas outside the IP protection domain. In this way, in failures of black artists whose work was used as inspiration by many, so much that their works became an idea itself and, therefore, not worthy of protection against copyright. Even the copyright setting standard has disadvantaged minority groups because often the works of indigenous communities are not written, but are transmitted from mouth to mouth.⁽¹⁰⁾ I elaborated the same in my previous work to provide protection against copyright to religious symbols and folklores.⁽¹¹⁾ This enigma occurs because the approach and intention of the Intellectual Property Law is not to provide a leveling playing field to the creators of all areas of life, it is only to encourage creators to create and inventors to invent.

However, through the word, people who have been disadvantaged for neutrality in the Intellectual Property Law are taking the reins in their hand by enjoying IP activism. The case in question is an excellent example of individuals from disadvantaged communities who attract attention to their knowledge and advocate for the protection of their scholarship where it is due. This case serves as an example that the intellectual property law crosses human rights and criminal law and cannot work in isolation when it affects society in general. The Supreme Court of this judgment has reiterated what Madhavi Sunder pointed out in 2006 in its IP3 article that intellectual property should not be seen only as an area of ​​the niche 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 defender in the exercise in the Superior Court of Punjab and Haryana. The views are personal.