Compliance with the triple test requirement for providing reservation for OBC in local bodies, as delineated in the Vikas Kishanrao Gawali case, is imperative.

ORDER :

W.P. (C) No. 841/2021

1. The application for intervention (I.A. No. 121445 of 2021) is allowed.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.

3. The relief claimed in this writ petition filed by the State of Maharashtra under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is essentially to direct the Union of India to disclose the Socio Economic and Caste Census, 2011 (SECC), raw caste data of the Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in the State of Maharashtra.

4. The respondent-Union of India has filed reply affidavit (dated 21.09.2021) and further affidavit (dated 14.12.2021) stating, emphatically, that the information collated during the Census as per the Census Act, 1948, was specific to Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes category only.

5. The SECC was resorted to owing to a subsequent decision taken by the Union Cabinet. It was not an OBC Survey as such, but a comprehensive exercise to enumerate the caste status of all the households in the country. Further, the information collated during such census is unusable as it is not accurate and fraught with multiple technical flaws. Several practical deficiencies are cited (in paragraph 15 of the affidavit) justifying reluctance to furnish the information so collected.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the reply given by the Ministry in the Parliament in response to the recommendations of the Parliamentary Committee, which read thus:

“10. The Ministry in their action take reply have stated as under:

“Rural census and urban census for identifying poor households have been completed by adopting methodology for identification of BPL households as approved by the Cabinet. The exercise has been completed using ‘respondent based canvasser method’ on tablets supplied by BEL that carried NPR information in image form. The decision subsequently to digitize NPR images and adoption of the same in SECC too has also been carried out but for a small chunk of data which is expected to be completed before 31st March, 2016. Canvassing of questions on caste and religion too were completed simultaneously. Register General and Census Commissioner of India, Ministry of Home Affairs has informed that the data has been examined and 98.87% data on individuals' caste and religion is error free. ORGI has noted incidence of errors in respect of 1,34,77,030 individuals out of total SECC population of 118,64,03,770, States have been advised to take corrective measures.”

7. Relying on this statement, it was contended before us that as the Parliament was informed by the Ministry that canvassing of questions on caste and religion were completed simultaneously and the data to the extent of 98.87 per cent on individuals' caste and religion is error free, it is not open to the respondents to now contend to the contrary.

8. In response, a further affidavit has been filed by the Secretary, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India explaining the position and to state that reference to 98.87 per cent accuracy appears to be either an error or has reference to other details, since the report of the Committee was made in 2015-2016, during which draft lists were being published in many States without caste data, as referred to earlier.

9. It was argued on behalf of the respondents that the Census data, SECC-2011 is not referable to the Census undertaken under the Census Act, 1948 but is independent of that. The fact remains that the affidavit filed before this Court emphatically states that the data as collated is not accurate and is unusable for any purpose whatsoever. If that is the stand taken by the respondents, we fail to understand as to how mandamus can be issued to the respondents and to permit the State of Maharashtra, petitioner before this Court, to use that data for any purpose much less for reserving seats for OBC in local bodies in the State. Such direction, if issued, would lead to more confusion and uncertainty. That cannot be countenanced.

10. We, therefo