SC refuses to stay Patna HC order on caste survey
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to lift the stay ordered by the Patna High Court, which had put an interim halt to the caste-based survey in the state of Bihar. A bench of Justices AS Oka and Rajesh Bindal, while refusing to interfere with the High Court’s order, took note of the fact that the High Court is scheduled to address the matter on July 3, 2023.
The court stated that it would consider the arguments on July 14 if the plea is not taken up by the High Court. “Why should we interfere at this stage? The High Court will look into it on July 3... The High Court has recorded prima facie findings. We are not affirming or interfering with the findings. We are only saying that it is difficult to grant relief today. We are not saying that we will not hear it,” clarified Justice Oka.
Referring to the documents that allegedly indicated the state’s intention to conduct a census rather than a survey, the SC bench stated that it needs to determine whether the state is attempting to conduct a caste census under the guise of a survey.
In defense of the Bihar government, Senior Advocate Shyam Divan argued that the survey was conducted voluntarily, distinguishing it from a census. He also added that 80% of the exercise had already been completed by the state.
“The High Court’s judgment is erroneous. This particular survey will require 10 more days. Mobilization has already taken place. A census is conducted on a specific date and covers the entire population. Our survey is not conducted on a 100% basis like a census; it is voluntary. This survey is voluntary. In a census, you are legally obliged to respond, but there is no such obligation in a survey. Surveys are conducted selectively. 80% of the exercise is complete, and what happens to the data?” he added.
The state had approached the Supreme Court against the High Court’s order on May 4, which had also stayed the dissemination of the information collected to political parties, citing concerns over the right to privacy. In the petition, the state argued that the stay is causing irreparable loss to the state and would adversely affect the entire exercise, as it was nearing completion.