No clarity on caste census a year after promise: Congress

One year after the Cabinet Committee on Political Affairs announced on April 30, 2025 that caste enumeration would be included in the upcoming national Censu...

What Happened

One year after the Cabinet Committee on Political Affairs announced on April 30, 2025 that caste enumeration would be included in the upcoming national Census, the Congress party raised concerns that critical implementation details remain unclear.
The party noted the absence of a defined "modus operandi" — no clarity on how caste data will be collected, validated, or published — and criticised the lack of consultation with opposition parties and state governments.
The Congress recalled that the demand for caste census had been consistently dismissed by the ruling dispensation for years before the April 2025 announcement, and alleged that the change of position was driven by electoral considerations rather than genuine policy intent.
The India Census 2027 is now scheduled to begin House Listing from April 1, 2026 through September 2026, with Population Enumeration in February 2027 — but there is no public confirmation that caste enumeration questions have been finalised or piloted.
Opposition parties described the situation as a "headline without a deadline," pointing to the unacknowledged letter sent by Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge to the Prime Minister on May 5, 2025.

Static Topic Bridges

The Census and Its Constitutional Basis

The Census of India is conducted under the Census Act, 1948. India conducts a decennial census — every 10 years — and the last was conducted in 2011. The 2021 Census was postponed indefinitely due to COVID-19 and is now scheduled as the 2027 Census (reference date: March 1, 2027). The Census counts population by religion and SC/ST status but has not counted OBC caste identities since the 1931 Census.

Census Act, 1948: The legal framework; Census is compulsory and data is confidential.
Registrar General of India: The nodal authority for Census operations, under the Ministry of Home Affairs.
OBC enumeration gap: Regular Census has excluded non-SC/ST caste data since independence; the 1931 Census was the last with comprehensive caste data.
Decennial requirement: The Constitution's Article 82 mandates delimitation of parliamentary constituencies after each Census — linking Census delay to delayed delimitation and thus to the women's reservation implementation delay.

Connection to this news: The 2027 Census is the pivotal post-106th Amendment census after which women's reservation can activate. Whether it will include caste enumeration of OBCs is central to both the political debate and the policy question.

Socio-Economic and Caste Census (SECC) 2011 — Why It Failed

The SECC 2011 was a massive exercise conducted alongside the Census but under different legislation (Ministry of Rural Development), designed to capture socio-economic data including caste identities of all households. However, the raw caste data from the SECC was never officially published in usable form.

The SECC 2011 produced a dataset listing approximately 46 lakh distinct caste names — reflecting data entry inconsistencies and lack of standardised codes.
No agreed methodology existed for de-duplicating, clustering, or validating caste entries.
The OBC-specific caste data from SECC 2011 was never officially released by the government.
The Bihar state government conducted its own caste-based survey (released 2023) independently of the central process.
A caste census integrated with the national Census would benefit from the Census's standardised methodology, trained enumerators, and legal compulsion — advantages the SECC lacked.

Connection to this news: The debate over implementation methodology is directly informed by the SECC 2011 failure — the criticism is that the government has not disclosed how the 2027 Census will avoid repeating those methodological pitfalls.

Article 340 and the Constitutional Framework for OBC Policy

Article 340 of the Constitution empowers the President to appoint a Commission to investigate the conditions of socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs) and make recommendations for their improvement. The first such commission was the Kaka Kalelkar Commission (1953); the second was the B.P. Mandal Commission (1979), whose recommendations were implemented in 1990 to provide 27% reservation for OBCs in central government jobs and educational institutions.

Article 340: Presidential power to appoint commissions for backward class investigation.
Mandal Commission (1979): Recommended 27% OBC reservation based on 1931 caste data — highlighting the staleness of available data.
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992): Supreme Court upheld 27% OBC reservation but capped total reservations at 50% and excluded the "creamy layer" from OBC benefits.
NCBC (National Commission for Backward Classes): Made a statutory body in 1993 (NCBC Act); elevated to constitutional status by the 102nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2018, which inserted Article 338B (NCBC as constitutional body) and Article 342A (President's power to specify Central OBC list).
The 102nd Amendment also inserted clause 26C into Article 366, defining "socially and educationally backward classes."

Connection to this news: Any caste enumeration data will ultimately flow into OBC policy — reservation entitlements, sub-categorisation, and welfare schemes. The NCBC (Article 338B) and the presidential OBC list (Article 342A) are the constitutional mechanisms that would act on caste census data.

The Supreme Court in August 2024 held in Pankaj Kumar Shri v. State of Punjab that states can sub-categorise OBCs within the 27% quota to give preferential treatment to the most backward among them. This intersects with the caste census debate — accurate caste data is a prerequisite for evidence-based sub-categorisation.

Prior to the 2024 judgment, E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2004) had held that states could not sub-classify SC lists.
The 2024 7-judge bench judgment overruled Chinnaiah in the OBC context — states may sub-classify, but must provide empirical evidence of inadequate representation.
The Rohini Commission (appointed 2017 under Article 340) was tasked with recommending sub-categorisation of the 27% Central OBC quota — its report was submitted in 2023.
A caste census would provide the data needed for defensible, evidence-based sub-classification.

Connection to this news: The political urgency behind caste census demands stems partly from the judicial mandate for empirical evidence for sub-categorisation — making data collection a legal as much as a political necessity.

Key Facts & Data

Last comprehensive caste Census: 1931 (British India)
SECC 2011: Conducted but OBC caste data never officially published; ~46 lakh caste entries recorded
April 30, 2025: Cabinet Committee on Political Affairs announced caste enumeration to be included in Census
Census 2027: House Listing phase April–September 2026; Population Enumeration February 2027; Reference date: March 1, 2027
Article 340: Presidential power to appoint Backward Classes Commissions
Article 338B: NCBC as constitutional body (inserted by 102nd Amendment, 2018)
Article 342A: President's power to specify Central OBC list (inserted by 102nd Amendment, 2018)
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992: Upheld OBC reservation; 50% cap on total reservations; creamy layer exclusion
Rohini Commission: Set up 2017 under Article 340 for OBC sub-categorisation; report submitted 2023
27% OBC reservation: In central government jobs and central educational institutions (Mandal implementation, 1990)
50% reservation ceiling: Set by Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney (1992); subject to "exceptional circumstances" exception