Petitioners argued before the High Court that linking caste particulars with personal identification such as Aadhaar, ration cards, mobile numbers, and geo-tagging of households as part of the survey violates the fundamental right to privacy.
Published Sep 23, 2025 | 7:51 PM ⚊ Updated Sep 23, 2025 | 7:51 PM
The state told the court that without adequate data, it was impossible to choose rational policy.
Synopsis: During a hearing on Tuesday of a batch of petitions challenging the legality of the ongoing Social-Educational Survey in Karnataka, the State told the court that it was not a “caste census” and that calling it such was a “misrepresentation”. Petitioners argued that linking caste data with personal identifiers violated the right to privacy, while the State maintained that participation was voluntary and that the data was essential for rational policy-making.
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday, 23 September, heard a batch of petitions questioning the legality of the Karnataka Social-Educational Survey (caste census) and seeking an interim plea to stay the exercise.
The survey, the second such in a decade, began on Monday and is being conducted by the Karnataka State Commission for Backward Classes.
Petitioners argued before the High Court that linking caste particulars with personal identification such as Aadhaar, ration cards, mobile numbers, and geo-tagging of households as part of the survey violates the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21, Livelaw reported.
They further told the court that they were not against the data collection itself, but the process by which it is being conducted.
However, the Commission informed a division bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice CM Joshi that there is no compulsion on residents to disclose information to enumerators during the survey.
Senior Advocate Prof Ravivarma Kumar, representing the Commission, said, “There is no compulsion, everything is voluntary.”
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the State, opposed the challenge and the plea for a stay. He submitted that petitioners had mischaracterised the exercise by calling it a caste survey, whereas it is in fact “a socio-economic and educational survey.” Singhvi emphasised, “It is not a caste survey. Welfare measures cannot be done without statistical data.”
The division bench questioned Singhvi, asking, “If it is your stand that each resident is identified and caste will be determined, then what will be the difference?”
Singhvi responded stating that without adequate data, it was impossible to give rational advice or choose rational policy.
Furthermore, Singhvi strongly opposed the demand for an interim stay on the exercise, stating that the State was empowered to undertake the census.
“It is not open to judicial review. The question would be presumption of constitutional competence. Interim order is to be given in rarest of rare cases. Historical examples I have given where Karnataka Govt has repeatedly done this,” he told the court.
“States are not only empowered but obligated to collect data for making informed decisions. A large chunk of measures under the Constitution including Article 15(4) and 16(4) must be supported by empirical data. Because classification otherwise would be arbitrary.”
Addressing the concern that petitioners’ argument could impact other data collection exercises, Singhvi added, “Unless lordships would say that my entire act is unconstitutional—which would be if at all after final hearing—then there is no question of interim orders. If this proposition of petitioners is accepted, then every data collection would be a census.”
The hearing is scheduled to resume on Wednesday.
(Edited by Dese Gowda)
