Petitioners in Karnataka High Court claim the ongoing caste survey could be misused for political gains and question its legality. The state defends the survey as essential for framing targeted welfare measures and assessing social and economic backwardness.
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday heard detailed arguments in a clutch of petitions questioning the validity of the state’s ongoing caste survey, officially called the Socio-Economic and Educational Survey.
The division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Joshi indicated that the matter will be taken up again on Wednesday, with an interim order expected to be delivered then.
The petitioners argued that
“under the guise of a survey, which is backed by the Karnataka State Backward Classes Commission, the state government is effectively conducting a caste census, a subject that falls within the Union government’s domain under the Constitution.”
They warned that the survey is “a colourable exercise intended to enumerate castes in the state for political gains” and expressed concern that such data could be misused.
They further submitted that
“caste-related data is already part of the main census, and a separate survey is unnecessary,”
noting that the Central government had previously found that such an exercise could “disrupt the social fabric of society.”
The petitioners highlighted that Karnataka had conducted a similar survey in 2015 at a cost of Rs. 150 crore, the results of which were never made public. Yet, the state is now carrying out a fresh survey.
The petitioners also raised concerns about discrepancies in the caste survey, alleging that
“the state itself has cited varying figures for the number of castes at different times.”
They warned that
“due to lack of clarity, individuals might even identify themselves under two different castes” and claimed there is “an artificial creation of caste in the new survey.”
They added that
“several previously unknown castes have been included in the newly released enumeration list, which now runs to more than 1,500 entries,” and that “many sub-castes have been treated as independent castes carved out of a main caste, creating confusion for individuals.”
The petitioners further pointed out the “addition of nearly 700 new Christian castes in the list” and described the entire exercise as “manifestly arbitrary.”
Referring to Section 3 of the Collection of Statistics Act, 2008, they argued that
“the present exercise lacks any mechanism to ensure protection or safeguarding of the data being collected.”
They also alleged that the survey
“goes beyond mere background information and amounts to profiling individuals, including intrusive details such as whether a person believes in God or not.”
The state government, represented by Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, countered these claims by stating that the petitioners were mischaracterising the exercise as a census, while it is “only a socio-economic backwardness survey.”
At this stage, the court questioned the distinction, noting,
“what real difference existed between a caste survey and a caste census, noting that both would ultimately yield the same result.”
Responding, Singhvi clarified that
“the objective was not enumeration for its own sake, but to assess the economic and social status of castes in order to frame welfare measures.”
He emphasized that
“if the state has the authority to conduct such a survey for welfare purposes, the petitioners cannot challenge it through writ petitions of this nature.”
He also added that
“such a vast relief cannot be sought by way of an interim order.”
The court observed that the petitioners’ main contention is that
“the state lacks such power, since Entry 69 of the Union List places census within the exclusive domain of the Union government, which has already notified that the upcoming census would include caste data.”
Continuing his arguments, Singhvi said that
“many constitutional measures, including those under Articles 15(4) and 16(4), must rest on empirical data, as any classification without such a foundation would be arbitrary.”
He further argued that
“the writ petitions essentially seek a mandamus compelling the court to act arbitrarily.”
ALSO READ: Allahabad High Court Adjourns Gyanvapi Mosque Wuzukhana Survey Case Hearing to October 7
He stressed that
“by insisting only the Union can conduct a census, the petitioners are effectively arguing that the state cannot even undertake objective surveys,” calling this position “a direct attack on the federal structure.”
The Senior Advocate underlined that
“no rational policy or decision can be framed in the absence of reliable data” and argued that “if the state government has the power to conduct such a survey, the question of how and when to undertake it falls within the realm of policy, which cannot be challenged through petitions of this nature.”
He also referred to the 105th Constitutional Amendment, asserting that
“the power it conferred must necessarily encompass the authority to conduct the present survey.”
Singhvi pointed out the irony that
“the Central government, which piloted the amendment, is now before the court supporting the petitioners.”
He submitted that
“unless the court ultimately holds the entire exercise unconstitutional after the final hearing, there can be no question of granting interim orders.”
He cautioned that
“accepting the petitioners’ proposition would mean treating every data collection exercise as a census.”
The petitioners in the matter include bodies such as the Vokkaligara Sangha, the Akhila Karnataka Brahmana Mahasabha, and the Veerashaiva Lingayat Mahasabha, along with several individuals.
Their main argument is that
“while the state is empowered to frame welfare policies for backward classes, conducting a caste-based survey to review social and economic conditions is not within its mandate.”
They have sought an interim stay on the enumeration process, which is currently ongoing across Karnataka.
The state government, led by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, has defended the survey as a necessary step to ensure targeted welfare measures.
Its main argument is that
“accurate and updated data on caste-wise social and economic conditions is essential for public policy,”
pointing to an allocation of nearly Rs. 420 crore for the exercise. The survey, which began earlier this month, involves door-to-door data collection by teachers and ASHA workers.
Case Title:
Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha vs. Karnataka State Backward Classes Commission And Others and connected matters
Click Here To Read More Reports on Caste Survey
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
