Satya Prakash
New Delhi, January 11
Four days after the Bihar government launched a caste-based head count in the state, a PIL in the Supreme Court challenged it on the ground that ‘census’ was not a state subject under the Constitution.
Filed by one Akhilesh Kumar of Nalanda, the petition was mentioned for urgent hearing before a Bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud which agreed to take it up on January 20.
The petitioner sought quashing of a June 2022 Bihar government notification for a caste census in the state mainly on the ground that the subject of ‘census’ fell in List 1 (Union List) of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution and only the Central Government had the power to hold the census.
He contended that the Census Act, 1948 did not contemplate a caste-based census.
“It is evident from Section 3 of the Census Act, 1948 that it is the Central government which is empowered to take census in the whole or any part of the territory of India. The State governments are not empowered under the Census Act, 1948 to take Census in a State … [on] a perusal of scheme of Census Act, 1948, it is clear that caste census is not contemplated in the Act,” the petition stated.
Launched on January 7, the caste survey was aimed at compiling data on each family digitally through a mobile application in the survey from panchayat to the district level.
However, the petitioner submitted that since the Representation of People Act prohibits election to Parliament or State Assemblies on the basis of religion or caste, legislators of political parties are prohibited from raising caste-based issues.
“In a state which is governed by rule of law, executive orders must get basis and genesis from law. The impugned Notification for caste census in the State of Bihar lacks statutory flavour and constitutional sanction,” the petitioner contended.
Kumar said the state government was under a constitutional obligation to eradicate caste conflicts. Moreover, there was no provision in the Constitution regarding caste configurations, he added.
Describing it as illegal, he said the notification in question went against the right to equality before the law, as it “accords differential treatment without intelligible differentia”.
