Introduction:
The Allahabad High Court recently delivered an important interim ruling concerning the extent of governmental authority to requisition employees of public sector establishments for census operations. In North Central Zone Insurance Employees Federation vs Union of India and Others, a Division Bench comprising Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi stayed the operation of an order issued by the Kanpur Nagar Nigam directing employees of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) to perform census duties.
The controversy arose from a May 2026 order issued by the Zonal Manager of the Kanpur Nagar Nigam, through which employees of the LIC were requisitioned for participation in census-related activities. The order was challenged by the North Central Zone Insurance Employees Federation, representing LIC employees, which contended that the directive was beyond the authority conferred by the Census Act, 1948.
The dispute acquired legal significance because it involved the interpretation of several provisions of the Census Act, including Sections 4, 4A, 6, and 7, as well as the Census Rules, 1990. More specifically, the case required the Court to determine whether employees of a statutory corporation such as LIC could be compelled to perform census duties outside the premises of their establishment and whether the authority issuing the requisition order possessed the jurisdiction to do so.
Prior to the Division Bench proceedings, a Single Judge of the High Court had dismissed the Federation’s writ petition. The Single Judge had interpreted the statutory framework broadly and concluded that employees of commercial and public sector establishments could be engaged as enumerators and supervisors for census purposes. The writ petition was also dismissed on procedural grounds, with the Court observing that the petitioner had not sought a sufficiently specific challenge to the relevant administrative orders.
Aggrieved by the decision, the Federation filed a special appeal before the Division Bench. The appeal raised important questions concerning statutory interpretation, administrative jurisdiction, and the limits of governmental power when seeking assistance from employees of public sector corporations for national exercises such as the census.
The case also brought into focus the broader constitutional principle that even actions undertaken in pursuit of significant public objectives must conform to the authority granted by law. While census operations are unquestionably matters of national importance, the High Court was called upon to examine whether the impugned requisition order complied with the statutory framework governing such operations.
The interim order passed by the Division Bench has therefore assumed significance not only for LIC employees but also for public authorities seeking to engage employees of corporations and institutions in future census exercises. The decision underscores the judiciary’s continuing role in ensuring that administrative actions remain within the boundaries prescribed by legislation.
Arguments of the Parties:
The appellant Federation challenged the validity of the requisition order on several grounds. It was argued that the Census Act, 1948 does not permit indiscriminate deployment of employees of statutory corporations for census work outside their establishments. According to the Federation, the statutory scheme clearly limits the circumstances in which employees of commercial or public sector establishments may be required to assist census authorities.
The Federation placed particular emphasis on Section 7(c) of the Census Act. It argued that the provision authorizes requisition of staff only in connection with census operations within the premises of the establishment concerned. Therefore, directing LIC employees to perform enumeration or supervisory duties outside LIC offices amounted to an impermissible expansion of statutory powers.
It was further contended that the authority issuing the order lacked jurisdiction under the Act. The Federation submitted that the Zonal Manager of the Kanpur Nagar Nigam was not empowered under Section 4 of the Census Act to requisition employees of the Life Insurance Corporation. Consequently, the order was not merely irregular but fundamentally without legal authority.
The appellant also challenged the findings of the Single Judge. It was argued that the learned Single Judge had adopted an excessively broad interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions and had failed to appreciate the limitations imposed by Section 7(c). The Federation maintained that the legislative intent was to permit limited assistance from establishments while preventing unrestricted diversion of employees from their primary duties.
Addressing the procedural aspect of the earlier judgment, the Federation contended that the writ petition did contain a challenge to the decision of the municipal authorities. It was submitted that courts should not adopt an overly technical approach while reading the prayers contained in a writ petition. Rather, the pleadings and prayers must be construed together to ascertain the true nature of the relief sought.
On the other hand, counsel appearing for the State Government and the Union of India defended the requisition order. It was argued that census operations constitute an exercise of immense national significance and require the participation of a large administrative workforce. The respondents maintained that the statutory provisions should be interpreted in a manner that facilitates the successful conduct of the census rather than restricts the ability of authorities to mobilize personnel.
The State relied substantially on the reasoning adopted by the Single Judge. It was submitted that a combined reading of Sections 4, 4A, 6(1)(e), and 7(c) of the Census Act, together with Rule 3 of the Census Rules, 1990, empowered authorities to engage employees from various establishments, including public sector corporations such as LIC.
The respondents also urged the Court not to interfere at the interim stage. Stressing the national importance of census operations, they argued that any judicial intervention could adversely affect preparations and implementation of the census programme. According to them, larger public interest required that the requisition order remain operative pending final adjudication.
The Union and State authorities therefore sought dismissal of the appeal and continuation of the arrangements made for census-related duties.
Court’s Judgment:
After considering the rival submissions, the Division Bench found sufficient grounds to grant interim relief to the appellant Federation. The Court disagreed with the State’s contention that the national importance of census operations alone justified denial of interim protection.
The Bench emphasized a fundamental principle of administrative law: the legality of governmental action depends not merely on the objective sought to be achieved but also on whether the action complies with statutory requirements. The Court observed that even a measure pursued in furtherance of an important public purpose must remain within the limits prescribed by law.
Rejecting the submissions of the State and the Union Government, the Court observed that the importance of census operations could not shield an otherwise unlawful administrative order from judicial scrutiny. The Bench categorically stated that legality cannot be determined solely by reference to the purpose of an order but must be assessed against the governing statutory framework.
A significant aspect of the Court’s reasoning related to Section 7(c) of the Census Act. The Division Bench prima facie interpreted the provision as permitting requisition of employees of corporations and establishments only for census activities conducted within the premises of such establishments. According to the Court, the statutory language did not appear to authorize deployment of those employees for census work outside their institutional premises.
The Court thus drew an important distinction between limited institutional assistance and broader field-level census operations. While acknowledging that establishments may be required to cooperate with census authorities, the Bench indicated that such cooperation cannot automatically extend to assignment of employees outside their workplace.
The Division Bench also expressed serious reservations regarding the competence of the authority that issued the requisition order. Prima facie, the Court found that the Zonal Manager of the Kanpur Nagar Nigam lacked jurisdiction under Section 4 of the Census Act to requisition LIC employees. This finding struck at the very foundation of the impugned order.
In addition, the Bench examined the procedural reasoning adopted by the Single Judge. The earlier judgment had held that the writ petition suffered from defects because it sought only a vague prayer for quashing the decision relating to engagement of LIC employees. The Single Judge had also observed that a writ of mandamus could not be granted in the absence of a specific challenge to the relevant administrative orders.
The Division Bench, however, adopted a more liberal approach. It observed that the prayers in a writ petition cannot be examined in isolation and must be read in the context of the pleadings as a whole. The Court noted that the petition did contain a request to call for the records and quash the decision taken by the concerned municipal authority.
According to the Bench, the substance of the challenge is more important than the technical form in which the relief is drafted. Consequently, the Court indicated that the procedural objections relied upon by the Single Judge would require further consideration at the stage of final hearing.
Although the Court refrained from delivering a final verdict on the interpretation of the Census Act, it clearly stated that the impugned order appeared, at least prima facie, to be legally unsustainable. The Bench therefore considered it appropriate to preserve the status quo until a comprehensive hearing could take place.
Accordingly, the Division Bench stayed the operation of the Kanpur Nagar Nigam’s order requisitioning LIC employees for census duty. The stay will remain in force until the next date of hearing. The matter was directed to be listed before the appropriate Bench on July 6 for final consideration.
The judgment is significant because it reinforces the principle that administrative authorities must act strictly within the powers conferred upon them by statute. It also highlights the importance of jurisdictional limitations in public administration. Even where governmental action serves an undeniably important public objective, courts remain duty-bound to ensure that such action complies with legislative mandates.
The final outcome of the case may have broader implications for future census exercises and the extent to which employees of public sector corporations can be engaged in governmental functions beyond their primary employment responsibilities. Until then, the interim order stands as an important reminder that legality remains the cornerstone of administrative action, regardless of the significance of the objective sought to be achieved.