Nagpur- For 15 months, Dr. Kshipra Uke and Dr. Shiv Shankar Das—the Dalit scholar couple who set a legal precedent by securing judicial recognition of intellectual property as a compensable asset—have been awaiting justice.

On 10 November 2023, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court ruled in their favor, ordering the Maharashtra government to compensate them for the damages they suffered.

Despite the Supreme Court’s January 24, 2025 dismissal of the Maharashtra government’s Special Leave Petition (SLP), the state continues to stall on executing the Bombay High Court’s directive to compensate them for their stolen research. The Nagpur District administration, instead of ensuring compliance, has remained inert, offering no signs of progress.

On February 10, 2025, the couple issued a formal reminder to Maharashtra’s Principal Secretary for Social Welfare, demanding immediate restitution in accordance with Clause 36-E of Schedule I of PoA Rule 12(4) and Section 15A-11(D).

In an exclusive conversation with The Mooknayak, they made their stance unequivocally clear: "We will wait for a maximum of three to four weeks. If the government fails to act, we will initiate contempt proceedings."

However, the delay, they argue, is not due to the ₹127 crore compensation sum but rather their caste identity.

"The Maharashtra government is very wealthy, allocating vast funds for infrastructure, roads, and schools. It is the largest economy in India. Why can't they compensate us then? ₹100 crores is no big sum for them," said Shivshankar Das.

“Had this claim been made by a Brahmin or an upper-caste individual, the government would have complied without hesitation—perhaps even without challenging the High Court’s verdict in the Supreme Court. But because this demand comes from so-called ‘untouchables,’ it is met with defiance,” Kshipra asserted.

Having single-handedly argued their case before the Bombay High Court, the couple’s deep legal acumen stems from years of meticulously studying hundreds of cases under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Drawing parallels to the Hathras gangrape case, where the Allahabad High Court’s Lucknow Bench questioned the Uttar Pradesh government for denying the victim’s family a government job despite extending similar benefits to upper-caste individuals, Dr. Das asserted: “The victims had demanded relocation to Delhi or Noida, as well as a government job. However, the Uttar Pradesh government expressed its inability to give a government job. The court's response was remarkable. The court's statement was, "You have given jobs to Tiwari & Gupta with no statues or provisions, why not here?"

Dr. Uke further questioned the Maharashtra government’s hesitation, stating, “If Maharashtra claims to take India to be the third-largest economy in the world, what does ₹127 crore signify to them? And even then, this amount barely compensates for what we have truly lost—because some damages go beyond what any court can quantify.”

"We haven't just pulled a figure out of thin air; we've provided a detailed calculation to assess our loss. Despite this, it seems insufficient. The Bombay High Court acknowledged that, considering our education and the loss we suffered, the amount we quoted is not unjustified. The court explicitly instructed the government to consider our demand," Kshipra said.

Even the Maharashtra government had acknowledged the atrocity against the Dalit couple as a 'unique and rare' case. This admission is significant, especially since the government's Deputy Secretary sent a letter on September 6, 2019, seeking guidance from the Joint Secretary of the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, GOI. The letter revealed that the state government was unsure about how to provide compensation, as the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act of 2015 did not have specific provisions for it. This uncertainty led the state to seek directions from the central government.

Since the High Court’s order on November 10, 2023, in the writ petition 759/2022, directing the District Magistrate (DM) to conduct an inquiry into the 10-point demands of the petitioners, the Maharashtra government has repeatedly sought extensions, delaying compliance for over 15 months. Despite being granted multiple extensions, the DM failed to complete the inquiry, prompting further legal battles.

On March 14, 2024, the state government first moved an application seeking a 9-month extension to conclude the inquiry. Parliamentary elections and considering that the DM being important stake holder in the election process the court, granted 3 months extension, with a clear directive that any further extension request must first be served to the petitioners before approaching the court.

“The first extension was granted without considering our viewpoint. So, in the next hearing, when another extension was sought, we objected,” Kshipra said.

During the subsequent hearing on June 14, 2024, the state sought a further 6-month extension, arguing that more time was needed. The petitioners strongly opposed this, asserting that extensions cannot be used to challenge the court’s directive. However, citing the District Collector’s involvement in parliamentary elections and delays due to the Model Code of Conduct, the court reluctantly granted an additional 5-month extension.

At the third hearing on November 21, 2024, the state once again requested a 6-month extension. While the petitioners contested this, the court observed that the only genuine reason for the delay was the DM’s preoccupation with legislative assembly elections and official duties. Consequently, the court granted a final 8-week extension, that meant a deadline for compliance by January 16, 2025.

However, even after the deadline expired on January 16, the authorities remain indecisive. “Since then, the Collector has held two meetings (one with us), yet they are still clueless about how to assess the losses we have suffered,” Dr. Uke remarked, highlighting the state’s continued inaction and evasiveness in fulfilling the court’s directive.

Collector’s Committee Failed to Assess Intellectual Property Loss?

In compliance to the court order, Nagpur DM had constituted a committee some time back, to enquire into the demands. Kshipra and Shiv Shankar strongly criticized the failure of the committee in assessing their losses and fulfilling the 10-point directive issued by the High Court.

"When the case was ongoing, the state never denied that we had suffered immense losses," Dr. Uke pointed out. "However, instead of addressing our claim, they raised two objections: first, that the SC/ST (PoA) Act only compensates for physical property—such as houses or movable assets—and does not extend to intellectual property or research data. Second, they argued that our losses were 'incalculable,' claiming the government lacked a mechanism to quantify intangible damages."

To counter this, Dr. Uke and Dr. Das themselves had proposed two concrete methods to evaluate their intellectual property loss, detailing them in court filings:

• Extrinsic/Instrumental Value: ₹3,91,85,000/-

• Intrinsic Value: ₹127,55,11,600/-

The court's judgment explicitly directed the Collector to review their submitted calculations and refer to the specified pages where these methods were explained before preparing a compliance report.

In response, in January 2025, the Collector formed a committee, including a faculty member from Nagpur University, to assess the loss. However, the committee failed to provide a definitive evaluation. "We don’t even know the outcome of this committee as we are not provided with the report or minutes of the meeting held on 9 Jan 2025" Das said.

"A similar attempt was made by the collector in 2021 to access our losses, where he made a committee comprising 4 faculty members from Nagpur university. To our knowledge, the committee suggested an instrumental loss (only raw data) value of ₹15 lakh. But strangely, despite filing numerous affidavits and applications during the high court case proceedings the state has never once mentioned this recommendation in court," Dr. Uke revealed.

"Why? Because they simply do not want any figure to be officially recorded. It seems they are comfortable giving us a mere ₹5,000–₹10,000—something they deem 'reasonable'—rather than acknowledging the real extent of our losses," she added with unmistakable sarcasm.

“Why Appoint University Teachers Instead of Experts?”—The Couple Questions the State’s Intent

The couple also strongly questioned the District Magistrate's selection of teachers from Nagpur University to assess their intellectual property loss, calling it an intentional move to undermine the credibility and accuracy of the evaluation.

"Why did they bring in the local university teachers?" Dr. Das asked. "They lack the expertise to assess our loss, and more importantly, they can be easily influenced. These teachers are not even of the same stature as government officers, let alone experts in intellectual property valuation."

The couple had proactively suggested three eminent economists and academicians—all distinguished policy-makers and stalwarts in their fields—to be included in the committee.

1. Prof. Sukhadeo Thorat – Former Chairman of UGC and a leading economist.

2. Dr. Bhalchandra Mungekar – Former Vice-Chancellor of Mumbai University, with key roles in the RBI and Planning Commission.

3. Prof. Narendra Jadhav – Former Rajya Sabha MP, economist, and educationist.

All three experts belong to the Dalit community and have significant experience in policy-making and governance, making them highly qualified to impartially evaluate the financial and intellectual scale of the losses incurred.

"Why doesn't the Maharashtra government form a panel with these experts to assess our loss?" Dr. Uke challenged. "Let them examine our calculations—if they find the amount we quoted or our valuation methods unjustified, we will reconsider. But how can we accept an assessment made by ordinary university teachers, who lack both expertise and authority in this matter?"

Dalit Couple’s Landmark Victory Sparks Nationwide Attention, Thanks The Mooknayak for Amplifying Their Struggle

As the world takes note of the historic legal victory of Dr. Kshipra Uke and Dr. Shiv Shankar Das—who set a precedent in an SC/ST Atrocities case by securing judicial recognition of intellectual property as an asset—their phones haven’t stopped ringing. Messages continue to flood their inboxes and social media handles, pouring in from across the country.

"I never imagined our fight would resonate so widely," Dr. Uke expressed. "Several leading media houses have covered our story, but it was The Mooknayak’s report that truly helped our community understand the deeper significance of this issue. Thank you so much!" the couple said, overwhelmed by the response.

Meanwhile, the latest development in their battle for compensation has seen the District Magistrate forward their letter to the Principal Secretary of the Social Welfare Department. With the matter now at the ministerial level, the couple is closely monitoring the government’s next move.

However, they remain steadfast in their approach: "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 reaffirmed.

With the Supreme Court’s verdict standing firm, the question remains: Will Maharashtra uphold justice, or will the scholars be forced into yet another legal battle to claim what is rightfully theirs?