Karnataka Caste Survey: ASG Terms Exercise a ‘Census Cloaked as Survey’ Before HC

In a clutch of petitions questioning the validity of Karnataka’s caste survey, formally called the Socio-Economic and Educational Survey, the high court on Wednesday heard extensive arguments but did not pass any interim order. The division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Joshi posted the matter for further hearing on Thursday, when an interim decision is expected.

Continuing his submissions today, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, for the state government, argued that the court was not being asked to stay any constitutional provisions, nor Sections 9 or 11 of the Karnataka State Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1995. Instead, he said, what was effectively sought was a stay on the very exercise of power.

The bench, however, clarified that the petitioners were not disputing the existence of state power but were challenging the manner in which the survey was being conducted. Court noted that the petitioners had pointed to a sudden increase in the number of castes in the state and alleged political motives behind the exercise.

Singhvi countered that the petitioners had made only sweeping allegations of the survey being “unscientific,” without offering specific grounds. Such claims, he argued, could only be tested once results were published. He stressed that a survey could be stayed only if flaws in its design were shown, which had not been demonstrated here. Referring to the Puttaswamy judgment, he said the government is permitted to collect data for welfare purposes, and “data mining” arises only if such information is handed over to private parties.

When the bench noted that one objection was that the survey would effectively amount to a caste census already proposed by the Centre, Singhvi responded that the Union had resisted caste census for years and agreed to it only last year. Even then, he said, the process would take five to seven years to complete. To argue that states must wait until then before collecting caste data, he submitted, would be contrary to the 324A Constitutional Amendment.

Pressed by the court on possible conflict between the Union’s caste census and the state’s survey, Singhvi replied that only an actual conflict, not an anticipatory one, could be considered.

Appearing for the Union, ASG Arvind Kamath argued that the constitutional scheme envisages a single authoritative census by the Central government, which alone provides secure and legitimate data processing. Census questions, he noted, are issued by gazetted notification, whereas no such mandate exists for a state survey. He described Karnataka’s exercise as “a census cloaked as a survey".

The bench then asked him to explain what would distinguish a legitimate survey from a census. The ASG replied that a survey must be issue-specific, whereas the present exercise strayed into the Union’s domain, which has already notified a caste census to begin in 2027.

Responding to petitioners’ claims about unusual additions in the caste list, counsel for the Karnataka Backward Classes Commission said revisions were made because many people during the earlier survey had complained their caste was missing. The list, he explained, was updated accordingly.

He further stated that houses and electricity boards were geo-tagged, while Aadhaar was used only to verify the name of the householder, prevent duplication, and exclude out-of-state residents.

The court, however, asked what authority allowed geo-tag stickers to be placed on houses and whether householders could be penalised for removing them. It also sought clarification on whether the Commission’s handbook specifies that participation is voluntary and whether surveyors are required to inform householders of this right.

Counsel replied that refusals were recorded if people declined to give data, prompting the bench to observe that the handbook does not in fact mandate that surveyors inform citizens about the voluntary nature of the exercise.

Court also asked about the petitioners’ contention that an earlier caste survey was conducted but its results were never released. Counsel said the results were withheld because questions had been raised about them.

The bench noted that similar concerns were now being raised about the current exercise, particularly the lack of consultation and the very short seven-day window provided for objections.

Counsel for the Commission nevertheless maintained that contemporaneous data is essential for framing and implementing welfare schemes.

The petitioners include the Vokkaligara Sangha, the Akhila Karnataka Brahmana Mahasabha, and the Veerashaiva Lingayat Mahasabha, along with individuals. Their primary submission is that while the state may frame welfare policies for backward classes, it has no mandate to conduct a caste-based survey to review social and economic conditions. They have sought an interim stay on the enumeration process, currently underway across Karnataka.

The state government, led by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, has defended the survey as a necessary step for targeted welfare measures. It argued that accurate and updated caste-wise socio-economic data is crucial for policymaking, pointing to an allocation of nearly ₹420 crore for the exercise. The enumeration, which began earlier this month, involves door-to-door data collection by teachers and ASHA workers.

The matter will now be heard on Thursday.

Case Title: Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha vs. Karnataka State Backward Classes Commission And Others and connected matters

Order Date: September 24, 2025

Bench: Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Joshi