The Bihar government recently moved the Supreme Court challenging a Patna High Court order that stayed the caste census in the State.
According to the appeal before the Supreme Court, the High Court erroneously examined the merits of the case at the interim stage and touched on the State’s legislative competence.
“The relief and finding at interim stage is as good as final relief and the writ petition has virtually become infructuous. The State has already completed more than 80% of the Survey work in some districts…there shall be no harm in completing the exercise subject to final adjudication…the time gap to complete survey would adversely affect the survey since this would not be a contemporaneous data,” the Patna government stated.
In addition, the High Court had heard the petitions challenging the ongoing caste survey in Bihar, specifically on the directions of the Supreme Court to consider and dispose of the interim application for stay filed in the matter.
A Supreme Court bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice Vikram Nath refused to hear three public interest litigation (PIL) petitions challenging the State’s decision to initiate the caste census in January 2023.
However, that bench allowed the petitioners to appeal to the Patna High Court.
The petitioners then approached the High Court, which initially declined to grant interim relief. The petitioners moved the Supreme Court in appeal which then asked the High Court to dispose of the interim relief application expeditiously.
Following that, a bench of Chief Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice Madhuresh Prasad ruled on May 4 that the survey is actually a census that can only be conducted by the Central government.
As a result, the High Court halted the surveys till July 3, 2023.
The High Court later clarified that the stay is not on the census itself, but on the collection of additional data and the sharing of information with political parties.
This resulted in the current appeal before the Supreme Court.
The appeal before the Supreme Court said that the petitioners moved the High Court 10 months after the survey began.
According to the appeal, the High Court incorrectly accepted the contention that the survey was a census and that personal information would be shared with MLAs.
Furthermore, if the survey is terminated at this point, the State will incur significant financial costs.
