Introduction:
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday heard a crucial challenge against the State Government’s approval to conduct a large-scale survey of the social and educational status of citizens under the supervision of the Karnataka State Backward Classes Commission. The petitions were filed by Rajya Vokkaliga Sangha (R) and other concerned parties, questioning the legality, constitutionality, and purpose of the exercise. The matter came before a division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Joshi, where the State was represented by Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, while the petitioners were represented by Senior Advocates Prabhuling K. Navadgi, Jaykumar Patil, Ashok Haranahalli, Vivek Subba Reddy, and Sriranga S. At the heart of the dispute lies the question of whether the State has the legal power to carry out what the petitioners label as a “caste census,” an exercise they believe infringes on constitutional provisions, privacy rights, and could be misused for political motives, whereas the State has strongly defended it as a necessary socio-economic and educational survey aimed at enabling welfare measures based on reliable statistical data.
Arguments of the Petitioners:
The petitioners argued that the State’s order authorising the Karnataka State Backward Classes Commission to carry out a comprehensive survey is legally unsustainable and constitutionally barred. Senior Advocate Prabhuling K. Navadgi emphasized Article 342A of the Constitution, pointing out that the authority to conduct any caste-based census lies solely with the Union Government. According to him, while the State may prepare and maintain its own list of socially and educationally backward classes, it does not have the power to carry out a survey of the entire population for caste enumeration, as such power remains exclusively with the Centre. He argued that the handbook issued for the survey made it mandatory to disclose sensitive personal details such as Aadhaar and mobile numbers, which raised serious concerns of informational privacy and potential misuse. He claimed that what was being projected as a socio-economic and educational survey was in fact nothing but a “caste census in disguise.”
Senior Advocate Jaykumar Patil further argued that Section 9(1)(ii) of the Karnataka Backward Classes Commission Act does not provide any statutory mechanism for conducting such a survey. He insisted that no legislation or amendment could supersede Article 342A, and that the proposed survey was equivalent to a census, an activity that falls exclusively within the Union’s domain. He termed the entire exercise as a colourable exercise of power, undertaken to ascertain caste numbers for political advantages in upcoming elections.
Senior Advocate Ashok Haranahalli raised the concern that the enumeration process was arbitrary and not backed by any prior study. He warned that duplication of entries and incorrect data collection were highly likely, leading to unreliable statistics. He highlighted the risks associated with digitally collected personal information, pointing out that the survey questions were essentially profiling citizens, which is constitutionally impermissible and violates the right to privacy recognized under Article 21.
Senior Advocate Vivek Subba Reddy elaborated on the complexity of caste identities, pointing out that innumerable castes exist within and across religious groups. He warned that the State’s approach of creating new lists and grouping castes in an unscientific and artificial manner lacked application of mind and would cause widespread confusion and chaos. He said that such an attempt would not only fail to capture reality but also lead to a politicized misuse of the data.
Senior Advocate Sriranga S argued that the haste with which the survey was being conducted raised suspicion. He contended that until the constitutional and legal issues were fully examined, the balance of convenience demanded that the State and the Commission stay their hand rather than rushing through an exercise that could have long-term implications on governance, privacy, and political dynamics.
Arguments of the State:
On the other hand, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the State, strongly defended the exercise. He argued that the petitioners had deliberately mischaracterised the survey as a caste census, while in reality it was a socio-economic and educational survey designed to gather data crucial for policymaking. Singhvi asserted that welfare measures and rational government policies cannot be formulated without reliable statistical data. “How on earth does one give rational advice or choose rational policy without having data?” he asked rhetorically, underscoring that data is the foundation of welfare governance.
He further clarified that unlike the census, which is compulsory, participation in the survey would be voluntary. He emphasized that unless the petitioners could establish that the entire enabling act was unconstitutional, the courts should refrain from interfering in the process at the interim stage. According to Singhvi, granting interim relief would mean halting every data collection exercise by equating it with a census. He maintained that collection of data for welfare measures does not amount to invasion of privacy, especially when the participation is not mandatory.
Singhvi stressed that the exercise was not about counting caste numbers but about assessing socio-economic realities—education levels, living standards, and access to welfare schemes. He argued that petitioners’ fears were unfounded and speculative, and that the judiciary should allow the State to proceed with the survey, leaving questions of legality to be determined after the final hearing. He concluded by asserting that governance cannot operate in a vacuum without data, and that statistical mapping of society is essential for equitable policy-making.
Court’s Observations:
At the outset of the hearing, the division bench expressed skepticism about the State’s claim that the exercise was purely socio-economic and educational. The bench observed, “It is their stand that each resident is identified and caste will be determined, then what will be the difference?” indicating that the court was alive to the petitioners’ concern that the survey was essentially a caste census.
The judges questioned the State on the mandatory requirement of Aadhaar and mobile numbers in the survey handbook, as pointed out by the petitioners. While Singhvi insisted that the exercise was voluntary and different from a census, the bench pressed on the privacy implications and the scope of State power.
The bench also heard detailed submissions on the constitutional bar under Article 342A, and whether the Karnataka State Backward Classes Commission Act could legally empower the Commission to conduct a survey of this magnitude. The petitioners repeatedly stressed that the exercise was not just limited to identifying beneficiaries for welfare measures, but amounted to an attempt to determine caste populations across the State, something that falls outside the State’s jurisdiction.
The court listened to both sides patiently and refrained from passing any interim order on the first day of hearing. However, it made it clear that the matter involves serious constitutional questions relating to privacy, separation of powers, and the scope of the State’s authority. The bench indicated that it would continue hearing the matter in depth before deciding whether to grant any interim relief or to let the State proceed with the survey while reserving final adjudication for a later stage.
Court’s Direction and Next Steps:
The High Court did not issue an immediate stay on the survey, despite persistent requests from the petitioners. Instead, it indicated that the hearing will continue tomorrow, allowing both sides to further elaborate on constitutional provisions, statutory interpretation, and the potential impact of the survey. The bench made it clear that the case touches upon fundamental issues of governance and citizens’ rights, and would require careful judicial consideration before reaching a conclusion.
The court’s questioning, particularly about whether the survey was distinguishable from a caste census, suggested that the bench is examining the State’s justifications critically. At the same time, the refusal to pass an immediate interim order reflects the judiciary’s cautious approach in balancing the State’s policy-making powers with citizens’ fundamental rights.
Ultimately, the judgment in this matter will hinge on whether the court accepts the State’s position that the survey is a welfare-driven socio-economic exercise within its legislative competence, or the petitioners’ position that it is an unconstitutional caste census in disguise, conducted in violation of privacy rights and beyond the State’s authority under Article 342A.