Bengaluru, Sep 25 (IANS) In a major boost to the Congress-led state government, the Karnataka High Court on Thursday refused to impose a stay on the Socio-Economic and Academic Survey, commonly known as the caste census, while directing the state government to ensure voluntary participation and data confidentiality.

The order enables the government to carry out the controversial caste census without hindrance.

A division bench, headed by Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and comprising Justice C.N. Joshi, passed the interim order while looking into a batch of PIL petitions by the Akhila Bharata Brahmana Mahasabha, the Vokkaliga Mahasabha, and other community groups had filed seeking a stay on the caste census being undertaken by the Backward Classes Commission, an independent body under the Karnataka government.

In the interim order, it laid down certain conditions for the government regarding the survey, that the confidentiality of the data collected must be protected and that the Backward Classes Commission, which has been entrusted with the task, should receive information only if provided voluntarily by the people.

The bench further directed that neither the government nor the Commission should share the information with anyone and must file an affidavit before the High Court in this regard.

The Commission was also instructed to create public awareness about the voluntary nature of the survey.

The HC then adjourned the next hearing for the second week of December.

Earlier, the bench questioned Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty on how the government planned to protect the confidentiality of the data collected, and he submitted that the government’s E-Administration Division would safeguard the data and only government officers would have access to it.

Professor Ravi Varma Kumar, senior counsel representing the Backward Classes Commission, sought permission to make a brief submission. He stated that, following concerns raised by the High Court, the Commission had undertaken reverification and ensured that no one would be forced to provide data during the caste census. He further assured that individuals would not be inconvenienced if they chose not to participate.

However, senior counsel Prabhuling Navadgi objected, stating that the Centre and the state are conducting separate caste census exercises and that the Commission is collecting Aadhaar numbers and complete details. At this stage, the High Court observed that the Commission was indeed obtaining Aadhaar details to ascertain identities.

Senior counsel Vivek Reddy, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the Commission had made only minor changes, which were of no consequence. He contended that there is no legal protection for this caste census, that there is a risk of data leakage, and that it raises serious concerns regarding the Right to Privacy.

Earlier, senior counsel Abhisheik Manu Singhvi had argued that the survey is aligned with the government’s policy-making process and is essential for framing social welfare projects. He contended that granting an interim stay would have long-term consequences, emphasising that there has been no precedent of imposing such a stay order. The purpose of the survey, he said, is to gather statistics, and in the absence of data, it is not possible to frame effective policies.

He further submitted that accepting the petitioners’ argument – that only the Centre has the power to conduct such surveys – would amount to restricting the powers of the state. He pointed out that earlier, the state government had constituted the Havanuru and Venkataswamy Commissions, and that such an argument undermines the federal structure of the country.

The contention that only the Centre can conduct a census, Singhvi argued, is incorrect and curtails the state’s powers. The government, he said, cannot carry out selective surveys; a full-fledged survey is required to identify backward classes. Following amendments to the Constitution, the state has been empowered to conduct such surveys. A comprehensive survey is part of the policy-making process, Singhvi stressed.

He added that backward classes cannot be neglected “while sitting in ivory towers”.

It cannot be argued, he said, that the Centre alone will conduct a survey and the state should refrain. Citing the example of Bihar, where a caste census has already been conducted, Singhvi argued that Karnataka cannot wait indefinitely for a central census, as this would weaken state administration. He maintained that the state legislature has the authority to conduct such a survey, and that caste categorisation must be based on statistics. The outcome, he said, could influence appointments, promotions, and other matters.

–IANS

mka/vd