SC dismisses plea against caste enumeration in Census, says govt needs data for welfare

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (May 20) dismissed a petition against the Centre’s move to include caste enumeration in the upcoming Census, stating that the government requires knowing the number of people belonging to the backward castes to properly plan and execute welfare measures.

‘No justification of collecting caste data’: PIL

The development took place during the hearing of a PIL by a bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi.

The petitioner, Sudhakar Gummula, who appeared in person, argued that the collection of such data on caste carries the risk of being misused if it falls into the hands of political parties and corporate entities.

Also Read: One court, one voice: How SC addressed its own discord on UAPA bail

He further stated that the Centre already has adequate data, adding that there was no justification for collecting more information.

"There are endless possibilities of politicians and corporate entities misusing the caste data. There is no justification for gathering such a large tract of data on caste," Gummula argued as quoted by NDTV.

Bench questions objections

The bench, however, was not convinced by the argument. The CJI pointed out that the issue of whether a census should be caste-based or not was a policy matter, asking what was wrong with collecting caste data.

The CJI further stated that to properly execute welfare measures, it was necessary for the government to have statistical data on the backward castes.

‘What is wrong with it’

"These are all policy matters, whether census should be caste-based or not. What is wrong with it? Any day's Government must know how many people are backward class, what kind of welfare measures are to be taken for them. It is within the policy domain.,” stated the CJI as quoted by Live Law.

Also Read: SC directs MeitY to examine plea on safeguarding Indians’ stolen data

The bench then dismissed the petition on the ground that no case can be made for judicial intervention in this regard, adding that the issue was a policy matter which in the present case was beyond the scope of judicial review.