Introduction

The Karnataka High Court has permitted the state government to continue its caste-based socio-economic and educational survey, while stressing two safeguards: participation must be voluntary and data must remain confidential. The ruling attempts to strike a balance between the state’s need for policy-relevant data and citizens’ rights to privacy.

Background

• The caste survey began on September 22, 2025, initiated by the Karnataka State Backward Classes Commission.

• Petitioners, including the Akhila Karnataka Brahmana Mahasabha, challenged the survey, arguing it was a “disguised census” that infringed on individual privacy, usurped state powers, and violated the Backward Classes Commission Act, 1995.

• The Union Government supported petitioners, claiming only the Centre has authority to conduct a census under the Constitution.

Key Developments

• A three-judge Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Joshi declined to halt the survey.

• The Court ruled: “We see no reason to interdict the current survey. However, we shall ensure that the information obtained shall not be given to any other individual.”

• The Commission was directed to file an affidavit outlining privacy safeguards.

• Enumerators must inform citizens that participation is optional; coercion or persuasion is strictly prohibited.

Issues

1. Whether the state government has constitutional competence to conduct a caste survey.

2. Whether collection of Aadhaar and personal data violates the right to privacy.

3. Whether the survey amounts to a census, which only the Union can undertake.

Court Directions

• Participation is voluntary; citizens cannot be compelled.

• Personal details, including Aadhaar, must be collected only with informed consent.

• Data confidentiality is paramount; leakage or sharing with third parties is prohibited.

• The Backward Classes Commission must create robust privacy safeguards and submit them on affidavit.

Government’s Position

• Advocate General Sashi Kiran Shetty assured the Court that privacy safeguards were in place.

• Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the state, cited Indira Sawhney (1992) and the 105th Constitutional Amendment (2021) to argue that the survey fell within the state’s jurisdiction.

• The state maintained that the exercise was not a census, but a survey to identify socially and educationally backward classes for welfare planning.

Current Status

• The survey continues under Court-mandated safeguards.

• Final arguments on the constitutional validity of the survey are scheduled for December 2025.

Conclusion

The High Court’s interim order reflects judicial restraint: allowing state-led data collection while embedding safeguards for voluntariness and privacy. The decision underscores the importance of ensuring that welfare-driven surveys do not become instruments of coercion or political misuse.