LI Network
Published on: 19 August 2023 at 11:05 IST
In an ongoing legal debate concerning the Bihar caste survey, the Supreme Court today emphasized the longstanding influence of the caste system within the eastern Indian state.
The case titled “Youth for Equality v. The State of Bihar” prompted the Court to address the issue of caste identification among residents in Bihar, contrasting it with the urban environment of Delhi.
Justice Sanjiv Khanna remarked, “Your caste is known to your neighbors. In Bihar, unfortunately, it is true. In Delhi, we don’t know.” This observation was shared by a bench led by Justice SV Bhatti, during a discussion on whether the State government’s caste survey violated citizens’ right to privacy.
The specific focus of the discussion centered on the nature of the caste survey, with the bench highlighting that the survey releases only aggregated data to the public, omitting individual caste details. Senior Advocate CS Vaidyanathan, representing the appellant challenging the survey, argued against the mandate to disclose personal details.
He questioned the compulsion to reveal information such as religion, gender, and monthly income, emphasizing that the form only allows the voluntary submission of Aadhar details. Vaidyanathan drew on the precedent set by the Constitution bench’s ruling in the Puttaswamy case, asserting that privacy rights can only be limited by a fair statutory law with legitimate intentions.
Vaidyanathan stressed, “Law cannot be executive notification, it has to be statutory law.” He noted that no such law existed prior to the Bihar government’s initiation of the survey.
The debate centers around the August 1 decision of the Patna High Court, which upheld the validity of the Bihar Caste Survey undertaken by the State government.
The Supreme Court clarified that it would not halt the publication of the caste survey results unless the appellants present a prima facie case justifying such action.
The Court expressed, “We are not going to stay anything unless there is a prima facie case… the exercise has already been completed … there is a judgment in their (State’s) favor.”
