The Nitish Kumar-led government in Bihar has moved the Supreme Court challenging the Patna High Court’s order to stay the ongoing caste-based survey. The state government’s appeal before the SC stated that the high court erroneously examined the merits of the case at the interim stage and touched upon the legislative competence of the state.
Earlier this week, the HC had rejected the state’s plea for an early hearing in the case. The division bench of Chief Justice KV Chandran had said the hearing will take place on July 3. “The state has already completed more than 80% of the survey work; in some districts, less than 10% of the work is pending. The entire machinery is at the ground level and there is no harm in completing the exercise, subject to final adjudication of the dispute. The time gap to complete the survey will adversely affect it since this will not be contemporaneous data… The stay on the collection of data itself will cause a huge loss to the state since finally the action of the state is upheld, the state will be required to put logistics in place with additional expenditure…,” the plea stated.
It further stated that the collection of caste-based data is a constitutional mandate under articles 15 and 16 apart from other provisions as explained in the counter-affidavit of the state. “The provisions of the Act can be effectively implemented only when the state has data based on caste,” stated the special leave petition (SLP) by the government, filed through advocate-on-record Manish Kumar.
“The 105th constitutional amendment reaffirms the power of the state for identification of caste under Article 342A. This can be achieved if the state has contemporaneous data on caste in the state,” the SLP submitted.
The state government has also challenged the findings of the Patna HC that its survey amounts to a census. The SLP said the power of the state to carry out such a survey is traceable to various entries of List III, Part 3 and Part 4 of the Constitution.
Bihar advocate general PK Shahi told CNN-News18, “Today, we have filed a petition against the interim order of Patna High Court on the caste-based survey. We have questioned the high court’s order stalling the caste survey. We will try to expedite the acceptance of our petition. It is up to the CJI to decide the date of hearing, since we have filed the petition today, we will try to expedite it.”
Guru Prakash, spokesperson for the BJP, called it a political gimmick. “The caste census cannot be the only barometer to judge your commitment to the marginalised sections, it’s a symbolic and outdated gesture. It is because of the Nitish Kumar-led government that thousands of marginalised people are suffering due to the prohibition policy. Nitish Kumar is just trying to take political leverage instead of walking the talk,” he said.
The Bihar government began its caste-based survey on January 7, estimated to cost Rs 500 crore. The first round was held between January 7 and 21, and the ongoing round began on April 16 and was to end on May 15. In January, an SC bench of Justices BR Gavai and Vikram Nath had refused to entertain three PILs challenging the state’s decision to initiate the caste survey. That bench had, however, granted liberty to the petitioners to approach the Patna HC.
Subsequently, the HC in its order dated May 4, held that the survey is actually a census and can only be carried out by the central government. The surveys were, therefore, put on hold till July 3, which is the next date of hearing in the case.
“Prima facie, we are of the opinion that the state has no power to carry out a caste-based survey, in the manner in which it is fashioned now, which would amount to a census, thus impinging upon the legislative power of the union parliament,” the court had said.
On May 9, the bench of Chief Justice Chandran and Justice Madhuresh Prasad rejected the state government’s application praying to expedite the hearing of writ pleas challenging the caste-based survey in Bihar. On May 11, the government filed an SLP before the SC challenging the Patna HC order.
Comments
0 comment