Supreme Court Dismisses Maharashtra Govt's Plea To Direct Centre To Share Raw Caste Census Data Of SECC 2011

The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed the writ petition field by the State of Maharashtra seeking to direct the Union Government to share the raw census data collected in the Socio-Economic Caste Census(SECC) held during 2011. The State Government sought the raw census data for implementing reservation for Other Backward Classes(OBC) in the local body elections.

A bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar dismissed the writ petition taking note of the stand of the Union Government that the SECC-2011 was not an exercise to enumerate the data of backward classes, and that the caste data collected during SECC-2011 was not accurate and fraught with errors. The Union Government also submitted that the SECC-2011 was not a census exercise undertaken under the Census Act 1948 and was done on the basis of executive instructions of the concerned Ministry to enumerate the caste status of households for delivery of targeted benefits.

In this backdrop, the bench observed that it cannot issue a direction to the Union of India to share the raw caste data of SECC-2011 with the State of Maharashtra.

"The fact remains that the affidavit filed before this court by the Union of India emphatically states that the data which is collated is not accurate and not usable. If that is the stand taken by the respondent, we fail to understand how mandamus can be issued to the respondent to permit the State of Maharashtra to use the date for any purpose. Such direction will lead to confusion and uncertainty, which cannot be countenanced. We, therefore, decline to entertain this writ petition", the bench noted in the order.

The bench also stated that the fact that the State of Maharashtra is obliged to comply with the "triple test" requirement before enforcing the reservation for OBCs in the local bodies does not mean that the Union Government can be directed to share the information which they themselves have classified as unusable. The bench has however given liberty to the State of Maharashtra to pursue other remedies available in law for their relief. The bench also took note of the fact that Maharashtra has constituted a commission for collecting caste data for the purpose of reservation in local bodies.

Arguments in Court :

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union of India, submitted that the raw census data of SECC 2011 cannot be shared as it was fraught with "inherent errors". Referring to the Union's affidavit, the SG submitted that the SECC 2011 was not meant to collect data of OBCs, and the enumerators were not equipped to deal with OBC information. He explained that the said raw data therefore cannot be utilized. The SG also argued that for the purpose of reservation in local bodies, political backwardness is the key factor to be ascertained. The SECC 2011 did not have any parameters on political backwardness, and such exercise has to be done local body wise. He also highlighted that contemporaneous data has to be taken for political backwardness and date collected a decade ago cannot be used in any case.

"The 2011 data is useless and it cannot help you... in this Article 32 plea by the State which is anyway not maintainable as they cannot claim fundamental rights, please don't order us to furnish raw data to the State. We have not even furnished it to the public. It is that worthless", the Solicitor General submitted.

Senior Advocate Shekhar Naphade, appearing for the State of Maharashtra, referred to Article 243D of the Constitution to argue that there is a constitutional mandate to provide reservation to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in local bodies in proportion to population.  The senior counsel also referred to Article 243D(6) which enables a state legislature to provide reservations for backward classes in local bodies. Relying on these provisions, he advanced the proposition that the Central Government has a legal obligation under the Census Act to do caste enumeration in census so as to implement reservation in local bodies.

Naphade also disputed the claim of the Centre that the raw data of SECC 2011 is full of data. "They cannot be a judge in their own cause by saying the data is full of errors. There has to be an examination by an independent committee of experts", he argued.

He also submitted that the report given by the Government to the Parliament had stated that the caste data in SECC 2011 was 98.87% error-free. In this context, the response of the Union was that this response of 98.87% might not be accurate as the Government Committee was giving its response in 2015-16 and that this figure could be referring to any other factor.

The bench at that point of time sought to know what was the legal basis for SECC 2011. The SG replied that SECC 2011 was not a census done by the Registrar General under the Census Act and was a separate exercise started by the Ministry of Social Justice to identify the target group for giving financial relief to backward groups. It was done under an executive order and not under the Census Act, the SG submitted.

Taking note of this stand of the Solicitor General, the bench asked if the SECC 2011 has a force of law and a writ of mandamus can be issued with respect to it.

"How can we issue mandamus against something which is not there in law. We cannot go ahead with this petition then. We are dealing with public representatives being elected..we are not going to be part of this decision which will create only more confusion", the bench observed.

The bench said that it cannot go into disputed questions of fact relating to the accuracy of raw data in a writ petition. Accordingly, the bench proceeded to dismiss the writ petition.

Case Title : State of Maharashtra versus Union of India |W.P.(C) No. 841/2021

Click Here To Read/Download Order