Karnataka High Court: In a set of writ petitions filed by the petitioners against the government orders directing the conduct of a social and educational survey of the populace of the State and praying for ad-interim orders to restrain the government and the Karnataka State Backward Classes Commission (‘Commission’) from proceeding with the survey, the Division Bench of Vibhu Bakhru, CJ*, and C M Joshi, J., while declining to grant a blanket stay on the survey issued directions to the State to immediately modify the methodology to ensure that participation and disclosure of information are purely voluntary and not obligatory. The Court further directed that the participants be informed that disclosure of any information is purely voluntary and in case of a participant declining to participate no further steps to be taken to pressurize the participant, in any manner, to divulge any information or his identity.
Background
The government issued an order dated 13-08-2025 seeking advice under Section 11(2) of the Karnataka State Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1995 (‘the 1995 Act’) from the Commission, concerning the conduct of a social and educational survey under Section 9(1)(ii) of the 1995 Act. The stated objective was to obtain data required for the review of the list of backward classes. The order dated 13-08-2025 mentioned that the survey be conducted digitally and mandated Aadhaar verification for every individual above 6 years. In a subsequent order dated 22-08-2025 the government approved the conduct of the survey and the deployment of electricity meter readers, in collaboration with all five ESCOMS of the State, to prepare a new list of houses using GPS coordinates. Pursuant to the order, the Commission published a list of 1,561 castes and sub-castes on 22-08-2025 and invited objections. The petitioners filed objections, raising issues regarding the arbitrary nature of the list and challenging the jurisdiction of the Commission to conduct a caste-based survey. As the objections failed to elicit a response and the survey commenced on 22-09-2025, the petitioners approached filed the writ petitions seeking urgent ad-interim relief claiming that the survey order and the 1995 Act are unconstitutional and ultra vires to Article 342 A of the Constitution.
Analysis And Decision
The Court heard the matter for the limited purpose of considering the grant of interim orders, with the caveat that nothing in the order would be construed as finally deciding the questions raised in the petitions.
On violation of Article 342A
The Court noted that the 105th Amendment introduced Clause (3) in Article 342A with a non-obstante clause. Thus, every State and Union Territory can, by law, prepare and maintain, for its own purposes, a list of socially and educationally backward classes, the entries in which may be different from the Central List.
The Court rejected the contention of the petitioners that the 1995 Act was not a ‘law’ as contemplated under Clause (3) of Article 342A. The 1995 Act, although under challenge in these proceedings, is on the statute book. Prima facie, the 1995 Act, which is undisputedly a law in force, by virtue of sections 9 and 11 empowers the State to maintain a list of backward classes and revise the same periodically.
On legislative competence of the State
The Court observed that at this stage, the examination is confined to considering the question whether an interim order restraining the State / Commission from carrying out the survey is required to be issued. Unless, it is established to the contrary, we must accept that the survey is being conducted for the stated purpose of ascertaining the social and educational status of the populace of the State.
The Court further observed that,
“Indisputably, the State cannot legislate and enact laws, which in their pith and substance are in respect of the subject of ‘census’. The Union of India has the exclusive power to legislate in respect of the said subject. However, a survey cannot be conflated with a census. Although a survey as well as a census may involve collection of data, they are qualitatively different.”
Further, the provisions of the Census Act 1948 have been enacted to empower the Central Government and the specified officers to conduct a census as required and to gather authentic demographic data. A survey conducted by the State for the purpose of preparing or maintaining a list of socially and educationally backward classes is a data gathering exercise where there is no obligation on any citizen to disclose any information in his possession or to answer the questions, which may be posed to collect any information. There is no penalty provided for a person declining to participate in the survey.
Therefore, the Court observed that,
“Prima facie, merely because the impugned survey extends to the entire population of the State of Karnataka would not render the survey a census as they are qualitatively different.”
In M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212, the Supreme Court had emphasized that the State has to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the class in the context of representation of the class in public employment. Hence, the State is empowered to prepare and maintain the list of socially and educationally backward classes which should be based on empirical data to avoid arbitrariness. Therefore, the Court observed that the State has legislative competence to conduct a survey.
The survey would also require ascertaining classes, which do not fall within the scope of socially and educationally backward classes. Thus, the Court noted that it may be necessary to take a measure of the affluent classes if only for determining a standard for ascertaining backwardness.
The Court noted that at this stage when the survey has already begun and a large number of persons have been mobilized to conduct the same, it is not apposite to examine in detail the grounds on which list of castes was prepared. If necessary, it maybe examined at a subsequent stage.
On Right to Privacy and use of Aadhar card
The Court observed that it was not apposite to interdict the survey. However, the questionnaire indicated that the Commission is collecting data on various aspects including religion, caste, sub-caste, disabilities, educational qualifications, marital status, benefits received, employment details, income, property owned including real estate and indebtedness. Given the nature of information being collected, it would be imperative that adequate safeguards are put in place to ensure that data collected is fully protected and the same is not used in any manner other than for the purposes for which they were furnished by the responders.
The Court, therefore, issued interim directions:
-
The data collected during the survey shall not be disclosed to any person, including the Government. The Commission shall ensure that the data is fully protected and is kept confidential.
-
A public notice must be issued clarifying the voluntary nature of the survey.
-
Enumerators must communicate the voluntary nature to all participants at the outset.
-
If a participant declines, enumerators shall take no further steps to pressurize them to divulge any information or identity.
-
The Commission shall file an affidavit within one working day, clearly disclosing the steps taken to ensure the collected data will be kept confidential and not accessible to any person other than the Commission.
The respondents were directed to file their statement of objections within the period of four weeks. The matter is to be listed on 05-12-2025.
[Akhila Karnataka Brahmana Maha Sabha (Regd) v. State of Karnataka, 2025 SCC OnLine Kar 19795, decided on 25-09-2025]
*Judgment by Justice Vibhu Bakhru, Chief Justice
Buy Constitution of India HERE
