The survey sought to map Karnataka’s demographic, social, educational and economic landscape. It covered over 1.35 crore households – representing 5.98 crore people – and gathered responses to 54 questions across 51 criteria.
Published Apr 19, 2025 | 11:00 AM ⚊ Updated Apr 23, 2025 | 8:46 PM
Synopsis: The Karnataka Socio-Economic and Educational Survey, 2015, has triggered sharp political debate over alleged inaccuracies in demographic data, particularly involving the state’s dominant castes. Though conducted nearly a decade ago, the report was only recently submitted to the cabinet and recommends raising OBC reservation to 51 percent, drawing from detailed data on over 1,300 castes. While critics have labelled the survey unscientific and called for its withdrawal, former Commission Chairman H Kantharaj insists the report is a crucial tool for shaping equitable policies beyond just reservation.
Nearly a decade after it was commissioned by the Siddaramaiah-led government during its first term, Karnataka’s Socio-Economic and Educational Survey – commonly referred to as the caste census – has ignited fierce political debate since its submission to the state cabinet on 11 April.
Originally conducted in 2015 by the Karnataka State Commission for Backward Classes under the chairmanship of H Kantharaj, the survey’s findings have stirred political tensions over internal discrepancies and their implications for caste-based reservations.
Although the report has not yet been made public, South First reviewed a leaked version of the document to break down its contentious findings and recommendations, which, if implemented, could reshape Karnataka’s socio-political framework.
This was one of the most extensive data-gathering exercises undertaken in the state.
The Commission drew its authority from Section 9(1) of the Karnataka State Backward Classes Commission Act, 1995, which empowers it to evaluate the status of communities and recommend changes to reservation policies. Under Section 11, the list of reserved categories can be reviewed every ten years.
The survey sought to map Karnataka’s demographic, social, educational and economic landscape. It covered over 1.35 crore households – representing 5.98 crore people – and gathered responses to 54 questions across 51 criteria.
Separate forms were used for rural and urban areas to gauge levels of backwardness in three broad categories: social, educational and economic.
The questionnaire included a wide range of indicators, including caste and community identity, population trends, education levels, traditional occupations, land ownership, living conditions, political representation, and access to welfare schemes.
The data was later digitised and stored by Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL), and is now housed in the State Data Centre of the Karnataka government. The Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore (IIM-B), has validated the dataset for accuracy and completeness.
The report provides a detailed caste-wise population breakdown and suggests the following reservation quotas:
Scheduled Castes are recorded at 1,09,29,347 and Scheduled Tribes at 42,81,289. The General category is listed as 29,74,153.
Among the most contentious aspects of the report is the difference in the percentage of the total population of the Muslim community shown in one chart and the percentage of the same community shown under the Category 2B reservation chart.
Jayaprakash Hegde, Chairman of the Karnataka Backward Classes Commission said, “There is no discrepancy in the number. While it was compiled and saved during the time of H Kantharaj, during my time, we wrote the report in theory. However, there is a lot of confusion when it comes to the percentage of total population and the population percentage that is proposed to get the reservation.”
He continued: “For example, the total population of Muslims is 76,99,425 which constitutes some 12.87 percent. Now this percentage is calculated using the entire population, that is, 5,98,14,942. However, the percentage of population for Muslims is 18.70 percent among OBCs because under Category 2B reservation, 75,25,880 people are eligible. The percentage is calculated here using 4,16,30,153. That is why it shows 18.70 percent. This is the entire logic here. The same is applicable to all the categories including Category 1A, 1B, 2A, 3A and 3B.”
The report also provides updated figures for some of Karnataka’s politically influential communities:
These figures are lower than earlier estimates, which had placed the Lingayat and Vokkaliga populations between 14 percent and 17 percent, sparking intense criticism from Lingayat leaders in particular.
Addressing these alleged issues, former Commission Chairman H Kantharaj told South First:
“What is important is we have made sincere efforts by visiting every door step and record the data as presented to us. Before closing the survey, we have put efforts to cover the missing houses which were locked or people had been to work. We had issued a toll-free number so that people could call us anytime and our surveyors would go there for a survey. Each surveyor was assigned 20 houses to be covered in 120 days. In case, if the family were not at home, then we would ask them to go again.”
He continued: “This percentage of population is calculated not just on the basis of population but on the basis of their backwardness in social, economic and educational. Besides, there is a synonymous factor in castes. One castes will have two different names. For eg, Agasa also has another name Madiwala. Even that must be taken into consideration while calculating.”
The survey documented a significant number of individuals who either did not disclose or had no caste data:
“We cannot force people to reveal their castes when they do not want to. In such cases over one lakh people have been recorded with no caste. How can you say it is wrong or unscientific?” Kantharaj said.
A total of 1,351 castes and communities were catalogued in the report, including:
Some communities had extremely small populations:
When asked Kantharaj as to how can one believe that such small number of people exist in these communities, he said, “They might be not be the permanent residents of this state. They might have come here for some business or temporary stay for few years. But I can assure you this data is real. Nothing was tampered here.”
Among religious minorities:
The Commission has proposed that 120 castes be added to the reservation list, based on community petitions and open hearings. These recommendations have been submitted in three separate reports.
Proposed additions under Category-1 include:
Kadugolla, Hattigolla, Adavigolla, Khanjir Bhat, Kanjar, Khanjar Bhat, Chappar Band, Pommala, Kudubi
The Maruthuvar caste has been proposed for inclusion under Category-2A, along with sub-castes of the Ganiga community: Devaganiga-Onthu Ganiga, Vaniyan, Jyotipana, Shivajyotipana
Other proposed inclusions:
Furthermore, following study tours in Telangana and Maharashtra, the Commission has recommended a 1 percent reservation in education and employment for orphaned children under Category-1A, especially those without caste identification.
The document adds that if too few orphaned children apply under the new 1 per cent sub‑quota, any unfilled seats should revert to the other castes in Category 1A rather than be carried forward as a backlog.
To assign reservation percentages, the Commission applied a 3:2:1 ratio based on social, educational and livelihood indicators. Data was drawn from previous commissions, field visits and public input.
The total reservation suggested is 32 percent, with distribution across categories reflecting both population share and degree of backwardness.
The Commission has recommended extending the creamy layer policy to all backward classes – including Categories 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 3A and 3B – for employment reservations.
The report notes that the economic condition of several castes in Category 1 has improved markedly; some members now run successful businesses and have accumulated significant wealth, along with better educational attainment and political representation.
To create a “level playing field” for children of poor wage workers and farmers within the same category, the Commission recommends extending the creamy‑layer income test to all backward‑class categories and further proposes splitting Category 1 into the sub‑groups 1A and 1B.
The Karnataka State Backward Classes Commission has proposed increasing the reservation quota for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) from 32 percent to 51 percent, citing the findings of the 2015 socio-economic survey.
The report notes that the state government has already increased the reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from 18 percent to 24 percent, pushing Karnataka’s total reservation to 56 percent.
Nationally, with the inclusion of 10 percent reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), the overall quota stands at 66 percent.
If the proposed OBC hike is implemented, Karnataka’s total reservation would rise to 85 percent.
The Commission acknowledges the 1993 Supreme Court ruling in Indira Sawhney v. Union of India, which capped reservations at 50 percent.
However, it points to precedents in states such as Tamil Nadu (69 percent) and Jharkhand (77 percent) that have adopted higher quotas, citing population-based needs.
According to the survey, OBCs make up 69.60 percent of Karnataka’s population. Despite this, the report states that less than half of them currently benefit from reservation.
According to the Commission, failing to align reservation benefits with the actual population share of backward classes would prevent equitable distribution of government facilities.
Using its chosen formula, it argues that adding 19 percentage points to the current 32 per cent quota—for a total of 51 per cent—strikes a reasonable balance between population share and administrative feasibility.
Opposition parties, Bharatiya Janata Party and Janata Dal (Secular) termed the survey as ‘unscientific,’ warning it could polarise the society and demanded for it juking.
In response, the KSBCC has defended its methodology and findings, pointing to established legal provisions and a history of similar studies.
The Commission cited previous reports that influenced its approach, including those by the Havanoor Commission (1975), Venkataswamy Commission (1986), Justice O Chinnappa Reddy Commission (1990), Justice Kudoor Narayan Rai Commission (1995), Prof Ravi Verma Commission (2000), Muniraju Commission (2003), Siddalingaiah Commission (2006), Dr C S Dwarkanath Commission (2010), and the Shankarappa Commission (2013).
It also referenced the Supreme Court’s landmark 1993 ruling in Indira Sawhney v. Union of India, which upheld the use of caste as a criterion in identifying backwardness. The judgment stated:
“The social backwardness was indeed because of the educational and economic backwardness of the caste and that such social backwardness was attributable to the caste. In other words, ‘class’ under Section 16(4) could be read as ‘caste.’”
It further clarified that Article 16(4) is about identification, not classification:
“What is required for the purpose of Article 16(4) is not classification but identification… caste, race, creed, occupation, place of residence etc. – naturally provide the basis for identifying such classes.”
Former Commission chairperson H Kantharaj acknowledged that while the survey was comprehensive, there were challenges, particularly in urban areas. He noted that more than 1.35 lakh people did not share their caste details, and some gated communities denied surveyors access.
“I agree the survey could have been done better,” he said. “It is disappointing to hear people say that we had not visited their home… In urban areas, there were bigger challenges.
“I agree the survey could have been done better. It is disappointing to hear people say that we had not visited their home during survey. There was option for people not to come and provide their details but there was no option for us to miss recording it. In urban areas, there were bigger challenges.
“More than 1,35,000 people did not furnish their caste details at all. In such cases, what must be done. There were gated communities which did not allow the surveyors inside. I personally went on a survey across Karnataka. They would ask us if it is being done to provide reservation, I have always said that this is not just for the reservation.”
Kantharaj explained that the purpose of the survey went beyond reservation, stressing that it aimed to guide broader social and developmental policy.
“Mere reservation is not entirely social justice. For the purpose of affirmative action, all the factors have to be taken into consideration. It is provide you facilities like buses, roads, water, electricity and formulate government schemes for the poor.”
He also pointed out the gap in urban coverage compared to rural areas, estimating 98 percent coverage in rural zones but acknowledging inconsistencies in cities. Some urban migrants, he said, were reluctant to provide accurate information.
Despite these gaps, he maintained the data was still useful:
“In the absence of survey, they use 2011 data for the projection and an approximate increase of 2.2 percent is made to formulate schemes. Don’t you think this data captured in 2015 can be used in the projection and further help people?”
(Edited by Dese Gowda)
