New Delhi: The Supreme Court has initiated proceedings concerning a series of petitions challenging the decision of the Patna High Court to greenlight the Bihar caste survey.
The bench, comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti, questioned the potential harm of individuals providing their caste or sub-caste details for the survey, particularly when the data will not be made public by the state.
The Patna High Court's decision to proceed with the caste survey, issued on August 1, 2023, has attracted criticism, with claims that the initiative infringes on the right to privacy. A batch of petitions against this decision has been brought before the Supreme Court.
In response to these petitions, Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, representing the Bihar government, conveyed that the caste survey had been completed by August 6, and the data was uploaded by August 12.
The bench refrained from issuing notices on the petitions to avoid delaying the proceedings, considering that the question of interim relief would then arise. The court has set a bar for granting interim relief and stated that it will not issue a stay order unless a prima facie case is established.
Senior Advocate Aprajita Singh, representing one of the petitioners, expressed awareness of the completed survey but argued for a stay on the publication of the collected data.
The court maintained that it would not grant a stay order unless justified, pointing to the high court's judgement favouring the state government and highlighting that the data has already been uploaded.
The data collected during the survey has been made accessible through the BIJAGA (Bihar Jaati Adharit Ganana) app. The bench noted that while individual data will remain private, cumulative data will be shared with various departments for analysis.
The proceedings delved into the necessity for communicating reasons behind the notification for a caste survey. Vadiyanathan, Senior Advocate representing an NGO 'Youth for Equality,' contended that an executive order for a caste survey does not meet the standards of law envisioned by the 2017 KS Puttaswamy verdict, which addressed the right to privacy.
In response, the bench differentiated between administrative decisions and quasi-judicial orders, clarifying that the notification for a caste survey falls under the former category. The bench remarked that administrative decisions might not warrant the same level of detail as quasi-judicial orders.
The bench adjourned the hearing to August 21 to accommodate further submissions from Senior Advocate Aprajita Singh.
Earlier in August, the Supreme Court had declined to stay the Patna High Court's decision allowing the caste survey to proceed.
The hearing reflects the ongoing legal debate surrounding the Bihar caste survey, with various petitioners contesting the state government's authority to conduct such an initiative. These petitions are challenging the constitutional mandate and legislative competence of the Bihar government in conducting this survey. The high court had previously upheld the state government's action, emphasising its legitimate aim of development and justice provision.