As a protracted battle over the intellectual ownership of India’s Digi Yatra platform unfolds, competing narratives between the Digi Yatra Foundation and its former developer, Data Evolve Solutions, have drawn the Delhi High Court into a complex dispute involving software rights, contractual obligations and allegations of unauthorized access. The case, now entering a more granular stage of issue-framing, raises fundamental questions about public digital infrastructure and the private firms that help build it.
A Contractual Relationship Fractures
The partnership between Digi Yatra Foundation (DYF) — a Section 8 non-profit formed under the Ministry of Civil Aviation — and Hyderabad-based Data Evolve Solutions began in 2021, when the developer was selected through a startup challenge to build components of the Digi Yatra platform. The parties signed a Minimum Viable Product Agreement (MVA) in November 2021.
DYF maintains that the contract explicitly vests all intellectual property created for or integrated into the Digi Yatra Central Ecosystem with the Foundation, including any derivative works or modifications. Only software that pre-dated the engagement, DYF argues, remains the property of the developer.
Tensions surfaced in late 2023 after allegations emerged regarding the diversion of ₹36.53 crore in traffic fines by the promoter of Data Evolve. According to court filings, DYF sought clarifications from the company in November 2023, and dissatisfied with the response, issued a disengagement letter in January 2024. The letter directed Data Evolve to hand over the Digi Yatra Central Ecosystem, including source code, credentials, and operational control of the passenger-processing architecture.
Data Evolve disputes the Foundation’s version of events, alleging that DYF withheld payments and asserting proprietary claims over Digi Yatra’s software architecture. The company has also approached courts in Hyderabad seeking IP protection.
A Contentious Legal Clash Over Ownership
The dispute reached the Delhi High Court earlier this year. In March 2024, DYF secured an ad-interim ex parte injunction restraining Data Evolve from using or copying any Digi Yatra passenger data, marking the first major judicial intervention in the conflict.
As the lawsuit progressed, Justice Subramonium Prasad framed four central questions on October 29:
- Whether DYF is the rightful owner of the Digi Yatra Central Ecosystem under the 2021 MVA;
- Whether DYF also holds intellectual property or other rights over software and services created by Data Evolve;
- Whether Data Evolve infringed DYF’s rights; and
- Whether DYF, in turn, misused any intellectual property belonging to Data Evolve.
These issues formed the baseline for the trial, but both sides have since sought to expand the scope of inquiry.
Data Evolve Alleges “Illegal Visit,” Cloning of App
During a recent hearing, Data Evolve introduced a new allegation: that KPMG, acting as an auditor, conducted an “illegal visit” to its Hyderabad premises and cloned the Digi Yatra application. Counsel argued that the cloned version was later deployed at 28 airports despite the underlying agreement permitting deployment at only four.
This contention emerged as Data Evolve urged the court to include six additional issues in the trial, including questions related to the app’s development timeline, audits, and the circumstances of its deployment.
The company asserted that work on the Digi Yatra application began in 2020 — predating its formal agreement with DYF — and therefore certain factual elements should form part of the evidentiary record.
Justice Prasad pressed the developer’s counsel to identify where in the pleadings these assertions appeared, reiterating that issues may be framed only when both the plaint and the written statement indicate a factual dispute.
Court Urges Procedural Discipline, Next Hearing on December 10
The High Court also addressed the matter of outstanding payments raised by Data Evolve. Justice Prasad noted that monetary claims must be made through appropriate procedural mechanisms.
“Issues arise when there is an assertion in the plaint and denial in the written statement,” the judge observed. “Where does this come in the plaint? Otherwise, you file a counterclaim. Pay court fees and then go ahead with that.”
Ultimately, the court indicated that most of the additional issues proposed by Data Evolve were either already covered or lacked a basis in the existing pleadings. Time was granted to DYF to file its reply to the new application, and the matter was listed for further hearing on December 10.
DYF, for its part, has also sought additional issues to be framed, signaling that both sides view the structure of the trial as strategically consequential.
