The Karnataka government’s ambitious plan to conduct a comprehensive caste-based social and educational survey has encountered fresh legal challenges, with the state High Court issuing notices to both the central and state governments. The development follows a batch of public interest litigations filed by community organisations and senior legal figures, who have questioned the constitutional validity of the survey order issued on August 13, 2025.
The petitions were heard by a division bench comprising Justice Anu Shivaraman and Justice K. Rajesh Rai. After preliminary arguments, the bench directed notices to be served on the Union Government, the State Government, the Karnataka State Backwards Classes Commission, the Registrar General of the Census of India, and other related authorities. The court scheduled the next hearing for September 22, while clarifying that interim pleas seeking a stay on the survey will be taken up on September 22.
The challenge was spearheaded by the Karnataka Vokkaligara Sangha, the Akhila Karnataka Brahmana Mahasabha, and senior advocate and former MLA K.N. Subba Reddy, among others. They argued that the state had overstepped its constitutional mandate by ordering a survey of all communities, including those outside the ambit of backward classes.
Pointing to the 102nd Constitutional Amendment passed in 2018, the petitioners argued that only the central government has authority to survey communities listed as socially and educationally backward. Article 342A, introduced by the amendment, empowers the President to notify such communities and reserves the power of review to a commission appointed under Article 340. Therefore, the petitioners claimed, the Karnataka government’s notification intrudes into central powers and violates the Constitution.
“The Backward Classes Commission cannot claim authority to survey every caste and community. Its jurisdiction is limited only to backward classes,” argued counsel for the petitioners. They further demanded that the Karnataka State Backwards Classes Act, 1995, and its subsequent amendment to Section 9(1), which allowed surveys of forward communities as well, be declared unconstitutional.
Apart from constitutional objections, concerns were also raised about the government’s methodology. Senior counsel Sriranga informed the bench that the government had enlisted meter readers from the energy department to collect data, a task that is often outsourced to private contractors. “This means sensitive socio-economic and caste-related data could end up in the hands of private firms with no safeguards,” he warned.
The petitioners contended that the survey order had been issued without adopting any scientific process to identify or categorise castes. They alleged that the exercise was hasty, arbitrary, and could lead to massive wastage of public funds. “The notification is unscientific and irrational. It risks huge financial loss to the state exchequer,” the petitions stated, urging the court to quash it.
Government defends its move.
In response, the counsel representing the Backwards Classes Commission told the bench that the petitioners were misrepresenting the facts. He claimed that survey copies had already been distributed to nearly two crore households and that the exercise was scheduled to commence formally on September 22.
The state government has argued that the survey is not a caste census but a broader social and economic survey intended to gather updated information about all communities. Ministers have repeatedly stated that the exercise will help frame welfare policies based on empirical data rather than outdated estimates.
The commission’s counsel further alleged that communities classified as “advanced” under the Chinnappa Reddy Commission were now attempting to obstruct the survey through litigation.
During arguments, Subba Reddy’s counsel pointed out that the government’s claim of having already initiated the process was misleading. “If the commission insists it has already started, then the survey cannot be rolled back even if the court later rules against it. This makes judicial oversight redundant,” he argued, demanding that the government suspend all survey-related activities until the matter is resolved.
The bench, however, refrained from granting an immediate stay, noting that the Advocate General was unavailable to respond. It adjourned the matter to Monday, when interim applications will be considered.
Comments