Supreme Court Receives Multiple Petitions Challenging Bihar Government's Caste-Based Survey Verdict

Petitioners, including Akhilesh Kumar and prominent NGOs, argue that the state's attempt to collect caste-based data infringes on constitutional powers and fundamental rights.

Outlook Web Desk

Updated on: 3 August 2023 11:41 am

Bihar CM Nitish Kumar

In a significant legal development, multiple petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court of India, challenging the Patna High Court's decision to uphold the Bihar government's controversial caste-based survey. The verdict, which was delivered by a division bench of the high court, has been met with heated debate.

The petitioners, including Akhilesh Kumar and non-governmental organizations 'Ek Soch Ek Prayas' and 'Youth for Equality', have voiced their concerns before the apex court. They contend that the state government's attempt to collect data based on caste is tantamount to a census, a task solely entrusted to the Union Government under the provisions of Entry 69 of the Seventh Schedule's List I, read with the Census Act, 1948.

Akhilesh Kumar, in his plea, argues that the Bihar government's actions encroach upon the constitutional distribution of powers between the state and the union legislature, violating Article 246 and Schedule VII of the Constitution, as well as the Census Act, 1948, and Census Rules, 1990, according to Live Law.

The core question of constitutional importance is whether the state's June 2022 notification for a caste-based survey, along with the appointment of district magistrates in supervisory roles, adheres to the principles of the separation of power between Bihar and the Union of India.

On the other hand, Youth for Equality, through Advocate-on-Record Rahul Pratap, raises concerns about the manner in which personal data is being collected under the executive order, asserting that it contradicts the 2017 KS Puttaswamy judgment of the Supreme Court. They argue that forcing citizens into specific castes, irrespective of their choice or need for state benefits, infringes upon several fundamental rights, including the right to identity, dignity, informational privacy, and choice under Article 21.

The special leave petition submitted by Ek Soch Ek Prayas, represented by Advocate-on-Record Surabhi Sanchita, adds weight to the legal battle, heightening expectations for a thorough reevaluation of the issue.