The Supreme Court on Friday adjourned till January 2024, a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the caste-based survey undertaken by the Bihar government this year.
The Division Bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti further refused to pass any order regarding stay or maintaining of status quo to restrain the State from acting on the data of the caste survey. It said it could not stop the state government or any government from taking a decision.
The Apex Court made the oral observation while hearing a plea filed by non-governmental organisations Youth for Equality and Ek Soch Ek Prayas challenging the Patna High Court verdict of August 2, which upheld the Bihar government’s decision to undertake a caste-based survey.
Senior Advocate Aparajitha Singh, appearing for the petitioner, took exception to the state government publishing the caste-survey data earlier this week, even while the matter was sub-judice.
Singh argued that the state government’s decision to seek caste details was contrary to the Supreme Court’s verdict in KS Puttaswamy, which recognised the right to privacy as a facet of fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Senior Counsel sought stay on the grounds that the Bihar government had not shown any ‘legitimate’ purpose for the survey. She requested the court to pass an interim order of status quo, asking the State to not act upon the survey data.
The lawyer asserted that the data may not be acted upon because it was collected unlawfully.
Appearing for the Bihar government, Senior Advocate Shyam Divan argued that the court had not passed any order against the publication of data. He said the Apex Court had indicated that first and foremost it would decide whether notice was to be issued.
The Bench, while noting that the matter required to be heard at length, adjourned the hearing until January next year, while issuing formal notice to the state government on the petitions.
Stating that by the next date of the hearing, the Bihar government would have published the data, Singh urged the court to issue a status quo order.
However, the Apex Court rejected her request and said that prima facie, she would be in some difficulty with respect to that. The Bench noted that it has read the judgement and formed a prima facie view, which was of course, subject to change.