Caste Census: Empowering Social Justice with Real Numbers

Context:

The Government of India’s decision to include caste enumeration in the upcoming Census marks a bold, transformative, and commendable policy shift. Caste enumeration is not identity politics, but a necessary mirror to the lived realities of millions. It is a critical step toward evidence-based policymaking, and essential for social justice, equity-driven development, and inclusive governance.

[stextbox id=’info’]

Post-Independence Paradox: Caste Blindness vs. Social Justice

• India has historically followed a dual and conflicting approach—abolishing caste hierarchies while simultaneously pursuing caste-based affirmative action.
• The refusal to count caste in the Census was aligned with a policy of caste blindness, which contradicts constitutional mandates of social justice.
• The Constitution of India supports affirmative action through reservations in education, employment, and political representation.
• While the Constitution uses the term “class”, the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld caste as a valid proxy for identifying social and educational backwardness.

[/stextbox]

Importance of Caste Data: Constitutional, Legal and Administrative Grounds

• Since 1951, the Census has only included SCs and STs, excluding OBCs and upper castes, despite constitutional eligibility for reservations.
• The 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments mandate OBC reservations in Panchayati Raj institutions and urban local bodies, making OBC data collection an administrative necessity.
• The introduction of EWS reservations in 2019 for upper castes further reinforces the need for a comprehensive caste count.
• Current reservation policy operates in an evidence vacuum, leading to elite capture, inequitable benefit distribution, and policy arbitrariness.

The Urgent Need for Caste Enumeration

• Caste data is essential not only for reservation implementation, but also for:
  • Equity-driven planning
  • Targeted policymaking
  • Monitoring social disparities over time
• The absence of disaggregated caste data has allowed dominant castes to consolidate control over wealth, opportunity, and power.
• According to data submitted to Justice G. Rohini Commission:
  • 10 OBC castes cornered 25% of OBC quota benefits.
  • 38% of OBC castes received only 3% of the benefits.
  • 37% received no benefits at all.
• Thus, caste enumeration is essential to enable:
  • Rational sub-categorisation
  • Definition of the “creamy layer”
  • Equitable policy design

Learning from the SECC-2011 Failure

• The Socio-Economic and Caste Census (SECC) 2011 was a major policy failure due to:
  • Lack of legal authority (not under the Census Act, 1948)
  • Poor institutional choice (Ministries of Rural and Urban Development led the process)
  • Open-ended and ambiguous questions
  • Inadequate training and classification
• Result: An unusable data set claiming the existence of 46 lakh castes, leading to policy paralysis.

Learning from Bihar’s Success: A Model for Replication

• The Bihar Caste Survey stands as an example of methodical planning and successful execution:
  • Pre-validated list of 214 castes with a general “Other Castes” category.
  • Accurate, state-specific enumeration through trained officials.
  • Shows that a credible and feasible caste survey is entirely possible.

Blueprint for a Robust and Credible Caste Census

• Legal Backing
  • Amend the Census Act, 1948 to explicitly mandate caste enumeration.
  • Legally insulate the process from political interference.
• Entrusting the Right Institution: Delegate responsibility solely to the Registrar General and Census Commissioner of India, not to ministries without domain expertise.
• Standardised Questionnaire Design
  • Use closed-ended questions with:
    • Sub-caste
    • Broader caste group
    • Aliases
    • Optional surname field
  • Implement unique digital codes to standardise data and avoid duplication (e.g., “Iyer” and “Aiyar” as one group).
• Preparation of State-specific Caste Lists
  • Collaborate with State governments, sociologists, and community leaders.
  • Invite public feedback before finalisation of caste lists.
• Enumerator Training
  • Conduct region-specific training modules with:
    • Mock examples
    • Clear do’s and don’ts
    • Local caste knowledge
• Digital Tools for Accuracy
  • Equip enumerators with handheld digital devices.
  • Preload devices with validated caste lists.
  • Restrict input to predefined categories to avoid manual errors.

[stextbox id=’info’]

Beyond the Decadal Census: Need for Continuous Caste Data Collection

• Caste data collection should not be restricted to the Census alone.
• Periodic surveys by NSSO, NFHS, and other agencies must also include SCs, STs, OBCs, and upper castes.
• The era of partial counting and statistical invisibility must come to an end.

[/stextbox]

• Representative and Neutral Staffing
  • Ensure diverse community representation among enumerators.
  • Avoid conflict of interest by deploying them outside their native areas.
• Independent Oversight Mechanisms
  • Form district-level audit committees to:
    • Monitor data collection
    • Conduct random sample checks for integrity
• Pilot Testing Across States: Conduct pilot studies in socially and regionally diverse States such as: Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh & Assam. 

Consensus on caste census

Context:

With the BJP government finally conceding to demands for a caste census — albeit reluctantly — India is witnessing a significant political shift. 

More on News

• However, this move appears less about genuine commitment to social justice and more about political optics. 
• The ruling party, displaying classic traits of a dominant political force, has co-opted a key Opposition demand and reframed it in a way that could neutralise its radical potential.

Political Context Behind the Caste Census

• Mandal Politics: Historically, the idea of “Mandal” politics and OBC reservation stemmed from non-consensual and highly charged political environments. 
• 2nd Backward Classes Commission: The Second Backward Classes Commission, and the implementation of its recommendations in the early 1990s, led to nationwide protests and deep political polarisation. 
  • At that time, India’s political arena was more fragmented, allowing for genuine ideological clashes and mass mobilisations.
• Today’s Shift: Today, however, the landscape is dominated by a single party — the BJP — which uses its position to appropriate and sanitise contentious issues. 
  • While Rahul Gandhi and the Congress attempted to revive the caste question in the lead-up to the 2024 general elections, the move yielded limited electoral dividends. 
  • Still, the growing noise around caste enumeration forced the BJP to reconsider its resistance.

BJP’s Calculated Embrace of the Caste Census

• Initially opposing the caste census on the grounds that it could fracture Hindu unity, the BJP has since recalibrated its stance. 
• Prime Minister Narendra Modi frequently references his own OBC identity, and the party has highlighted the marginalisation of leaders like Sitaram Kesri under the Congress to bolster its pro-OBC image.
• Now, by announcing that caste will be included in the next national census, the BJP appears to have stolen the narrative.
  • But this symbolic victory is not necessarily a win for substantive change.

Risks of a Hollow Consensus

• The sudden emergence of national consensus on caste enumeration may actually sideline deeper conversations about caste-based inequalities — including discrimination, violence, and economic deprivation. 
• With the focus now narrowed to the logistics of counting castes, more transformative ideas such as the formation of an Equal Opportunity Commission — once discussed during the UPA era — have vanished from public discourse.
• This is the hallmark of dominant-party politics: convert complex social issues into controlled narratives, strip them of their disruptive power, and create a facade of unity.

Key Challenges and Questions Ahead

Census Delays and Design Flaws: The national census, originally scheduled for 2020-21, remains pending. 

It’s unclear what caste-related data will be collected, how it will be framed, and whether it will mirror the flawed methodology of the 2011 SECC (Socio-Economic and Caste Census).

• State-Level Data Ignored: States like Bihar, Karnataka, and Telangana have already conducted their own caste surveys. 
  • But with the Centre’s announcement, these reports may be sidelined, and any state-led initiatives toward caste-based policy planning could stall.
• Policy Paralysis Despite Data: Even without fresh caste numbers, India’s socio-political reality cries out for targeted welfare, proportional representation, and affirmative action reforms. 
  • Yet, there’s no indication that political parties — including Congress — are prepared to push the agenda meaningfully.
• Elite Resistance Across Castes: Resistance to redistributive policies is expected not only from upper castes but also from dominant OBC and SC communities within states, who may fear dilution of their current privileges. 
  • This intra-group elite capture remains a major roadblock to genuine social justice.
• The “Hissedari” Dilemma: Rahul Gandhi’s call for backward castes to receive their fair “hissa” (share) has gained traction. 
  • However, the proposal lacks clarity on how to empower small, marginalised communities that may still be excluded under a purely proportional system.

The BJP’s strategic embrace of the caste census issue is not an unequivocal win for backward communities — it is a political containment exercise. By creating a managed consensus, the ruling party has muted calls for systemic reform and made it harder for the Opposition to push back.

History of Caste Census in India

Colonial Era (1881–1931):

• The practice of caste-based data collection began with the first synchronous Census of India in 1881, under British colonial rule.
• From 1881 to 1931, every decennial census included detailed enumeration of all castes, sub-castes, and tribes.
• The 1901 Census, led by H.H. Risley, classified castes according to the varna hierarchy, which led to protests and controversies. By 1931, Census Commissioner J.H. Hutton shifted to occupation-based classification to avoid social precedence disputes.
• The 1931 Census was the last comprehensive caste census. The 1941 Census was disrupted by World War II, and its caste data was never published.

Post-Independence (1951 Onwards):

• After independence, the government decided not to collect caste data in the 1951 Census, except for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs).
• This policy aimed to move away from reinforcing caste identities and foster national unity.
• In 1961, the central government permitted states to conduct their own surveys to identify Other Backward Classes (OBCs) if they wished.

Mandal Commission and OBC Reservations: The Mandal Commission (1979–1980) relied on the 1931 caste data to estimate the OBC population at 52%, which later influenced the implementation of 27% reservations for OBCs in education and government jobs in 1990.

Socio-Economic and Caste Census (SECC) 2011:

• The UPA government initiated the SECC in 2011, making it the first attempt at a caste-based census since 1931.
• SECC 2011 collected socio-economic and caste data, but only the socio-economic findings were released publicly; the caste data was handed over to the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment and remains unreleased.
• SECC 2011 was conducted independently from the main Census under the Ministry of Rural Development and Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation for rural and urban areas, respectively, with the caste component under the Ministry of Home Affairs.

Recent Developments: In 2025, the Union Cabinet Committee on Political Affairs approved the inclusion of caste enumeration in the upcoming national Census, marking a significant policy shift.

How the Judiciary Maintains Accountability

Context:

The recent comments made by Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar regarding the role of the Indian judiciary have sparked widespread concern and merit a detailed constitutional analysis. 

More on News

• Speaking in the context of the Supreme Court’s directive to set time limits for the President and Governors to approve Bills passed by the legislature, Dhankhar criticised the judiciary for allegedly acting as a “super Parliament” and for issuing directives to constitutional heads. 
• He further claimed that judges are not accountable because the “law of the land does not apply to them.” 
• These remarks, coming from the second-highest constitutional office in India, could send misleading signals and have serious implications for the doctrine of separation of powers and the supremacy of the Constitution.

Judiciary and the Myth of a ‘Super Parliament’

• Popular Sovereignty: The notion of a “super Parliament” has no constitutional basis. 
  • In the Indian constitutional framework, Parliament is the supreme legislative body, representing the will of the people and upholding the principle of popular sovereignty. 
  • However, to ensure that no institution, including Parliament, acts arbitrarily, the judiciary is vested with powers of review and interpretation, as embedded in the Constitution.
• Checks and Balances: This balance was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the landmark L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India (1997) case, which held that although judicial powers are derived from the Constitution, they are exercised within a well-defined framework of checks and balances. 
  • The independence of the judiciary is guaranteed, but this does not make it immune to accountability. 
  • Should any judge act outside constitutional boundaries, Article 50 and relevant judicial accountability provisions allow for removal based on proven misbehavior, thus reinforcing the integrity of the system.

Can the Judiciary Direct the President?

• To understand whether the judiciary can issue directions to the President of India, one must examine the constitutional role of the President. 
• As per Articles 52, 53, and 79, the President is the constitutional head of the Republic, the Executive, and the Parliament. 
• While the President holds substantial symbolic and procedural powers, he or she is expected to act in accordance with popular sovereignty and constitutional propriety.
• When Bills passed by Parliament or State Assemblies are held up indefinitely for Presidential or Gubernatorial assent, it undermines the legislative process and democratic mandate.
• In such cases, judicial intervention to set deadlines is not only legitimate but also essential to uphold the will of the people. 
  • It ensures that executive delay does not dilute legislative intent, and this is entirely consistent with constitutional principles.

Accountability of Judges and the Rule of Law

• The Vice-President’s assertion that the judiciary is not bound by the law of the land is both misleading and detrimental to India’s rule of law. 
• The rule of law is a cornerstone of the Constitution and binds all authorities, including judges. 
  • Judges are not above the law; rather, they are its interpreters and custodians, empowered to ensure that every act of the state aligns with constitutional mandates.
• If a judge violates constitutional provisions, there exists a mechanism for impeachment, ensuring judicial accountability. 
  • Moreover, Parliament retains the power to override judicial decisions through legislation, provided such laws do not violate the basic structure of the Constitution. 
  • This dynamic reflects popular sovereignty and the essential balance between the judiciary and legislature.

Judicial Review and Article 142: The Power to Do Complete Justice

• The Indian Constitution grants the Supreme Court the authority to review legislative and executive actions, thereby safeguarding citizens’ rights. 
• Under Article 142, the Court can pass orders necessary to do complete justice in any case before it. 
• This provision emphasises the judiciary’s role not as a rival to Parliament but as a complementary institution that ensures laws and executive actions serve the public interest.