Karnataka Caste Survey: Petitioners Allege ‘Possible Weaponisation’ of Data; State Defends It as Welfare Measure in HC

In a clutch of petitions questioning the validity of Karnataka’s ongoing caste survey, formally called the Socio-Economic and Educational Survey, the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday heard extensive arguments. The division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Joshi said the matter would be taken up again on Wednesday, and the interim order is likely to be delivered then.

The petitioners argued that under the guise of a survey, which is backed by the Karnataka State Backward Classes Commission, the state government is effectively conducting a caste census, a subject that falls within the Union government’s domain under the Constitution. They contended that this is a colourable exercise intended to enumerate castes in the state for political gains, warning that such data could be weaponised.

They further submitted that caste-related data is already part of the main census, and a separate survey is unnecessary, especially since the Central government had earlier found that such an exercise could disrupt the social fabric of society.

They also pointed out that the Karnataka government had already conducted a similar survey in 2015 at a cost of Rs. 150 crore, the results of which were never made public. Yet, the state is now embarking on a fresh survey.

They further flagged possible discrepancies in the caste survey, alleging that the state itself has cited varying figures for the number of castes at different times. They argued that, due to lack of clarity, individuals might even identify themselves under two different castes.

They alleged that there is an artificial creation of caste in the new survey. They claimed that several previously unknown castes have been included in the newly released enumeration list, which now runs to more than 1,500 entries. Many sub-castes, they said, have been treated as independent castes carved out of a main caste, creating confusion for individuals. They also highlighted the addition of nearly 700 new Christian castes in the list. The entire exercise, they claimed, is manifestly arbitrary.

Referring to Section 3 of the Collection of Statistics Act, 2008, they contended that the present exercise lacks any mechanism to ensure protection or safeguarding of the data being collected.

Moreover, the petitioners alleged that the exercise goes beyond mere background information and amounts to profiling individuals, including intrusive details such as whether a person believes in God or not.

The state government, represented by Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, argued that the petitioners were mischaracterising the exercise as a census when it was, in fact, only a socio-economic backwardness survey.

At this stage, the court intervened and questioned what real difference existed between a caste survey and a caste census, noting that both would ultimately yield the same result.

Responding, Singhvi submitted that the objective was not enumeration for its own sake, but to assess the economic and social status of castes in order to frame welfare measures. He stressed that if the state has the authority to conduct such a survey for welfare purposes, the petitioners cannot challenge it through writ petitions of this nature. Such a vast relief cannot be sought by way of an interim order, he argued.

Court, however, clarified that the petitioners’ central contention was that the state lacks such power, since Entry 69 of the Union List places census within the exclusive domain of the Union government, which has already notified that the upcoming census would include caste data.

Sr Adv Singhvi continued his arguments and said that many constitutional measures, including those under Articles 15(4) and 16(4), must rest on empirical data, as any classification without such a foundation would be arbitrary.

Most importantly, Singhvi argued that the writ petitions essentially seek a mandamus compelling the court to act arbitrarily. He contended that by insisting only the Union can conduct a census, the petitioners are effectively arguing that the state cannot even undertake objective surveys. This position, he said, amounts to a direct attack on the federal structure.

The Senior Advocate stressed that no rational policy or decision can be framed in the absence of reliable data.

He further argued that if the state government has the power to conduct such a survey, the question of how and when to undertake it falls within the realm of policy, which cannot be challenged through petitions of this nature.

Referring to the 105th Constitutional Amendment, Singhvi argued that the power it conferred must necessarily encompass the authority to conduct the present survey. He pointed out the irony that the Central government, which piloted the amendment, is now before the court supporting the petitioners.

Singhvi submitted that unless the court ultimately holds the entire exercise unconstitutional after the final hearing, there can be no question of granting interim orders. Accepting the petitioners’ proposition, he warned, would mean treating every data collection exercise as a census.

The petitioners include bodies such as the Vokkaligara Sangha, the Akhila Karnataka Brahmana Mahasabha, and the Veerashaiva Lingayat Mahasabha, along with individuals. Their primary contention is that while the state is empowered to frame welfare policies for backward classes, conducting a caste-based survey to review social and economic conditions is not within its mandate. The petitioners, therefore, have sought an interim stay on the enumeration process, which is currently underway across Karnataka.

On the other hand, the state government, led by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, has defended the survey as a necessary step to ensure targeted welfare measures. Its main argument is that accurate and updated data on caste-wise social and economic conditions is essential for public policy, pointing to the allocation of nearly Rs. 420 crore for the exercise. The enumeration, which began earlier this month, involves door-to-door data collection by teachers and ASHA workers.

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

Order Date: September 23, 2025

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