Big regional parties like the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) in Bihar, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) in Tamil Nadu, and even segments of the Congress, orally supported the caste census, which built a steady pressure on the Union government. Several states like Bihar, Odisha, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, and Tamil Nadu had either conducted or expressed intent to conduct their own caste surveys.
In a country where caste passes through everything from marriage and education to politics and bureaucracy, the absence of reliable, up-to-date data on caste composition is not just a statistical gap — it is a constitutional contradiction.
Maybe that is why the question of conducting a nationwide caste census has resurfaced with greater urgency and controversy than ever before, exposing not only social anxieties and political tensions but also layered legal complexities that strike at the heart of India’s constitutional promise of equality and social justice.
Not only this, but at the core of this debate lies an irony so stark that it is impossible to ignore. Indian courts — especially the Supreme Court — have repeatedly asked governments to justify reservation policies with contemporary factual data on caste backwardness. But successive Union governments had categorically refused to conduct a caste census, citing administrative difficulties and fears of social division.
This legal contradiction of courts demanding data and the executive refusing to collect it, has now come to a head. The caste census is no longer a mere administrative exercise; it is a legal and constitutional imperative with deep ramifications.
The last full count of caste in India was done during the British colonial period in the Census of 1931. That data is nearly a century old and hopelessly outdated, yet it remains the statistical bedrock for all caste-based reservation policies even today. Post-independence, while the Government of India continued to collect data on Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs), it consciously avoided counting castes among the Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and other social groups. This decision was ostensibly taken to move towards a casteless society, but in practice, it left the entire framework of affirmative action policy operating in a vacuum of reliable data.
READ MORE : https://lawchakra.in/blog/no-census-after-2011-modi-govt-plan/
The lack of data has had severe implications for legal policymaking. The Supreme Court in its landmark judgment of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), upheld 27% reservations for OBCs based on the Mandal Commission report. The apex court specifically emphasised the government’s need to update the list of backward classes periodically and ensure that reservations benefit only those who are genuinely disadvantaged. The Court observed that caste can be a dominant factor in determining social backwardness. However, due to the absence of fresh caste data, governments have been forced to rely on approximations and outdated numbers. Hence, resulting in poor targeting of benefits, arbitrary sub-categorisation, and endless litigation.
One of the most glaring examples of how the absence of caste data undermines reservation policy came in Maharashtra. As we know, the state’s attempt to grant reservations to the Maratha community was stopped repeatedly in courts because it could not produce credible data showing the community’s social and educational backwardness. Outcome? In 2021, the Supreme Court of India struck down the Maratha quota and cited a lack of adequate factual evidence.
Same way, the State of Tamil Nadu attempted to provide a 10.5% sub-quota for the Vanniyar community within the Most Backward Classes (MBC) category, which was also stayed by the Madras High Court for the same reason, that is, the absence of caste data to support the policy. Clearly, these legal setbacks are nothing but a direct consequence of the State’s refusal to conduct a caste census.
On the other hand, dominant caste groups have already started voicing against the state-level caste surveys, fearing that fresh data might erode their current share in reservation benefits.
Karnataka, for example, conducted a caste survey in 2015 under the Siddaramaiah-led government, which reportedly showed that the dominant Vokkaliga and Lingayat communities possess lower population shares than previously assumed. These communities immediately challenged the findings, argued that the data was outdated or inaccurate and demanded a review. Result? The survey was never officially released.
So the chances are that similar backlash from dominant caste groups could imperil any national-level caste census as well.
It is not unforgettable when Bihar released its caste survey data in 2023, which showed that OBCs and Extremely Backward Classes (EBCs) constituted around 63% of the state’s population. It triggered fresh demands to increase the OBC quota, leading to political clashes and upper-caste anxieties over “reverse discrimination.”
At this juncture, it is necessary to examine the principal arguments advanced in support of a caste census, articulated both by legal scholars and political advocates.
Proponents argue that without updated caste data, it is impossible to accurately identify social and educational backwardness, which is the constitutional basis for reservations. Courts have consistently emphasised that affirmative action must be evidence-based and subject to periodic revision. A caste census, therefore, would provide a factual foundation needed for fair and sensible policymaking, preventing both over-inclusion of undeserving groups and exclusion of genuinely disadvantaged ones.
Secondly, advocates argue that credible caste data would prevent dominant caste groups from cornering benefits meant for weaker sections. This is clear in numerous states where politically powerful OBC groups monopolise quotas, leaving smaller, more backward castes marginalised. Therefore, fresh data can help rationalise reservations, ensure fair sub-categorisation, and correct historical distortions.
Thirdly, supporters maintain that the caste census does not divide people, but it reflects social realities. Ignoring caste data does not make it disappear; it only hides the privilege some castes already possess. Through transparent counting, we can fix inequalities and provide welfare to those in need.
Legally, the factually strongest argument in favour is that caste count is necessary to comply with the constitutional mandate under Articles 15(4) and 16(4). Without updated data, neither Parliament nor the judiciary can see whether existing reservations continue to serve the intended purpose. Moreover, updated data would empower states to rationalise their lists of backward classes, as envisaged under Article 340.
READ MORE: https://lawchakra.in/legal-updates/caste-based-census-data/
Conversely, there are equally factual arguments against conducting a caste census, advanced by the Union government. Critics argue that caste count could dangerously deepen caste identities and intensify social divisions. Counting caste formally in a national census could revive caste consciousness, legitimise caste hierarchies, and inflame communal passions, especially in volatile regions.
Secondly, critics argue that caste is a complex and changing idea, so it is hard to count. Trying to list castes can lead to wrong or confusing data, like what happened in the messy SECC 2011 survey. Bad data might cause more problems, leading to wrong policies and endless court cases. Administratively, too, opponents say that caste census would be extremely difficult since India’s caste system is very local and complex, with many sub-castes and different names across regions. Training staff, setting clear categories, and checking claims on such a huge scale is seen as almost impossible.
Additionally, dominant caste groups opposing such counting fear that new data could change the existing political power equations and reservation privileges, which can trigger long-term legal and political instability.
Till now, the central government has consistently taken a rigid stance against a caste census. In 2021, when Maharashtra approached the Supreme Court seeking a direction to the Union government to collect caste data in the 2021 Census, the Centre refused. It filed an affidavit stating that collecting OBC caste data would be “administratively difficult,” “prone to errors,” and “contrary to constitutional values.” The apex court dismissed state’s plea, and left them on their own to conduct local surveys.
But, many legal scholars also argued that the Centre’s position was both constitutionally indefensible and practically untenable. The Census Act, 1948, vests the power of conducting the decennial census exclusively in the Union government, but the Collection of Statistics Act, 2008, empowers state governments and local bodies to collect socio-economic and caste data independently. This created a legal grey zone where states could conduct surveys, but the absence of uniform, nationwide data hampered the credibility and comparability of such exercises.
Now, in an important shift, the Centre announced that it will conduct a caste census along with the upcoming national census. This decision marks a watershed moment in India’s constitutional history, as the central government takes direct responsibility to collect updated caste data on a nationwide basis for the first time since 1931. The move is seen as an attempt to resolve the legal, political and social contradictions that have plagued positive action policies for decades.
However, adding further complexity is the fact that while the Union government had resisted caste counting for OBCs, it had no hesitation in introducing and justifying the 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in 2019 which meant primarily for upper-caste poor — without conducting any factual data collection to support its necessity. This selective approach while collecting data exposed the constitutional logic of the government. Just think!
If factual data is considered mandatory to justify OBC reservations, how can the government skip the similar evidence while introducing a new quota like EWS? The Supreme Court’s 2022 judgment upholding the EWS quota without insisting on any factual data only deepened this inconsistency.
READ MORE: https://lawchakra.in/latest-news/rahul-gandhi-caste-census-backed-by-u-u-lalit/
The political side of the caste census is also hard to ignore. Big regional parties like the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) in Bihar, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) in Tamil Nadu, and even segments of the Congress, orally supported the caste census, which built a steady pressure on the Union government. Several states like Bihar, Odisha, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, and Tamil Nadu had either conducted or expressed intent to conduct their own caste surveys. But since the reservation is both a central and state subject, and caste-based policies have nationwide implications, such state-level approach was not enough.
Top constitutional law scholars such as Prof. Faizan Mustafa and Prof. M.P. Singh also weighed in, arguing that the constitutional scheme under Articles 15(4), 16(4) and 340 requires regular caste data toensure that affirmative action is based on facts. They also pointed out the Supreme Court rulings in cases like M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006) and Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018) that observes fresh caste counting a legal necessity, not a policy choice.
Amid this debate, there are cases pending in the Supreme Court cases on caste census. The batch of petitions challenging the validity of Bihar’s 2023 caste survey which is filed by NGOs like Ek Soch Ek Prayas — submits that only the Union government can conduct such an exercise under the Census Act, 1948, and that the Bihar survey violates privacy and federalism principles. A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna after hearing the matter at length declined to order stay on the survey, where senior advocates like Shyam Divan and Kapil Sibal clashed fiercely over constitutional provisions.
READ MORE: https://lawchakra.in/latest-news/bihar-caste-census-state-justifies-survey-sc-affidavit/
Also, the Supreme Court issued notice on a separate 2024 PIL seeking a nationwide caste census, filed by the NGO Youth For Equality, which argues that absence of caste data violates the right to equality and frustrates effective implementation of reservation policies.
So, the caste census is not just a social or political question but fundamentally a legal one as the Constitution explicitly mandates the identification and upliftment of socially and educationally backward classes under Articles 15(4), 16(4), and 340.
Against this backdrop, the Centre’s announcement that it will conduct a caste census alongside the national census is not merely a policy reversal — it is a constitutional course correction.
Legally, this step has the potential to resolve three long-standing contradictions. First, it fulfils the Supreme Court’s repeated demand for “quantifiable data” to justify affirmative action. Second, it addresses the glaring inconsistency in data collection standards between OBC and EWS reservations. And third, it clears the confusion around whether states can do their independent caste surveys, making sure that the data possesses nationwide uniformity and comparability.
But in a political context, the decision is filled with risks. New data could reveal discrepancies in the current reservation system, leading to demands for change in quotas, which can unsettle the strong vote bank. Dominant caste groups, suspicious of losing their privileges, are likely to oppose or legally contest the census results, as witnessed in Karnataka and Bihar. Socially, too, the surfacing of caste numbers may sharpen identity politics in an already polarised polity.
READ MORE: https://lawchakra.in/high-court/supreme-court-kerala-government-caste-survey/
The legal fraternity is already gearing up for the flood of constitutional challenges over complex questions such as: Should the reservation quota directly match with a caste group population size? Can the creamy layer be fairly excluded from the fresh data? Do states have the power to change OBC lists after the census? Most importantly, how will fresh data impact the Supreme Court’s 50% ceiling on total reservations laid down in Indra Sawhney? These contentious legal questions are likely to dominate the debate for the future.
As the Centre prepares to start this historic exercise, India stands at the brink towards the legal, political and social churn unprecedented in recent memory. The caste census might not give instant answers; in fact, it could escalate the tensions first, but it is a necessary first legal step if India wants to fulfil its promise of equality and social justice in policies. Whether the courts, legislature and polity can navigate this complex issue without fracturing the social fabric remains to be seen.
One thing, however, is certain — the caste census is not just a statistic. It is a mirror to India’s constitutional soul.
Disclaimer: The views expressed are personal.
FOLLOW LAWCHAKRA FOR MORE NEWS AND UPDATES
