‘Agree in principle’: Supreme Court on concerns over self-declaration for census caste enumeration

Appearing for Goel, Senior Advocate Mukta Gupta said, “We are not opposed to the caste census. The only prayer is it that should be on the basis of verified material, because for years, this will be the data for all welfare policies, reservation and all. So, it should not be mere self-declaration.”

She added, “We are not going on the genuineness but there should be some material. Today, it is only on the self-declaration. A self-declaration without verifying can be very hazardous because anybody would say anything, and that will affect the sanctity of the census.”

Justice Bagchi stated that it must be left to the census authorities to decide the procedure, but the petitioner’s concerns can be highlighted in the form of a representation.

“That’s left to the expert body. The census exercise is an absolutely specialised exercise by trained minds of vast experience. They know exactly what parameters to be put for the purpose of census. And the enumeration, it is a question to be left to them to decide. Your major representation could be considered.”

Gupta, assisted by Advocates Vibhor Garg and Nitya Gupta, pointed out that the petitioner had already raised the issue with the authorities.

You have done a commendable job, says Supreme Court to petitioner

The CJI then said, “You have done a commendable job. You have brought it to the notice of the authorities, and you have sensitised them also. If at all they still do something wrong, then law will take its own course.”

The senior counsel expressed the apprehension that “it will be totally irreversible”.

She added, “This census will be itself costing Rs 13,500 crore, plus the impact on all the welfare policies. That’s the problem. If ultimately, anyone by a self-declaration may give whatever they want, we are not saying verify the certificates, but there should be some material that yes, they belong to this caste. At that stage, they cannot hold an inquiry whether that certificate is genuine or not, but some material should be there.

The CJI said, “We can only direct the authority to consider… the issue… and we will tell them to keep all these aspects in mind.”

In its order, the court, while disposing of the writ petition, said, “the census exercise is regulated under the Census Act, 1948, and the 1990 Rules framed thereunder which empower the respondents to determine the particulars and manner of census operations.”

“We have no reason to doubt that the respondent authorities with the aid and assistance of the domain experts must have evolved a robust mechanism in order to rule out any mistake as apprehended by the petitioner or several like-minded persons. Nevertheless, we find that the petitioner has flagged some of the relevant issues in the legal notice dated July 9, 2025, addressed to the Registrar General and Census Commissioner of India as well as the Directorate of Census Operations.”

The order added, “We thus deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the suggestions/issues raised by and on behalf of the petitioner in the above-mentioned legal notice. The petitioner, if so advised, may forward a copy of the writ petition to the respondent authorities as supplementary representation and that may also be taken into account by the authorities.”

What the petition said

The plea filed through Advocates Anuj P Agarwala and Aayush Agarwala of PBA Legal said, “While the Respondent Union of India has issued notifications declaring that Census 2027 shall be conducted in two phases and has initiated preparatory and pre-test exercises, it is an admitted position that no guidelines, questionnaire, or notified framework has been placed in the public domain explaining how caste data is to be recorded, classified, or verified.”

“In particular, the Respondents have not disclosed any pre-determined criteria or standardised methodology governing the recording of caste identity, despite the acknowledged expansion of caste enumeration beyond SC/ST categories to include OBCs for the first time in an official census exercise.”

It added, “In the absence of any notified framework or verification mechanism, caste enumeration risks being reduced to unverified ·self-declaration, with no safeguards against overcounting, undercounting, ·misclassification, or internal inconsistency. Without a uniform classification or validation process, the data generated is likely to be fragmented, unreliable, and unsuitable for meaningful policy application, thereby undermining the very purpose of the census.”

The plea said, “the Respondents have failed to indicate any basis or determining factors by which information furnished by individuals or families identifying themselves as SC, ST, or OBC would be verified or cross-checked. This omission is particularly significant given that the census data is proposed to be finalised and published immediately upon completion of fieldwork, rendering any subsequent correction or validation practically impossible.”