Bihar’s caste-based survey facing legal challenges (GS Paper 1, Social Justice)
Why in news?
- The Supreme Court is set to hear petitions challenging the Patna High Court (HC)’s verdict upholding the Bihar government’s ongoing caste survey.
What is the ‘caste-based survey’?
- The State government launched a two-phase caste survey in Bihar, stating that detailed information on socio-economic conditions would help create better government policies for disadvantaged groups.
- The survey is estimated to collect the socio-economic data for a population of 12.70 crore in the 38 districts of Bihar.
- The first phase of the survey, which involved a house listing exercise, was carried out from January 7 to January 12. The State was in the middle of the second phase, when the survey was halted due to a stay order from the HC in May.
- However, a recent HC verdict dismissed all petitions opposing the move, and the government on resumed work on the second phase of the survey.
- In the second phase, data related to castes, sub-castes, and religions of all people is to be collected. The final survey report can be expected in September.
Why the need for a caste census?
- The Census conducted at the beginning of every decade does not record any caste data other than for those listed as Scheduled Castes (SCs). In the absence of such a census, there is no proper estimate for the population of OBCs, various groups within the OBCs, and others.
- Despite this ambiguity, the Union government has categorically ruled out conducting a socio-economic caste census, saying it is unfeasible, ‘administratively difficult and cumbersome.’
- Responding to a writ petition filed by the State of Maharashtra, the Centre in its affidavit said that excluding any castes other than the SCs and Scheduled Tribes was a ‘conscious policy decision’ adopted since the 1951 Census, and that there was a policy of ‘official discouragement of caste’.
- The Union government in 2011 had undertaken a survey of castes through the Socio-Economic and Caste Census of 2011. However, the collected raw data of nearly 130 crore Indians was never made public due to flaws in the data.
Why is it being challenged?
- The petitions in the Supreme Court contend that the State’s order notifying the survey is unconstitutional since only the Centre is exclusively authorised to conduct a census under the Constitution.
- They also point out that the State Government does not have any independent power to appoint District Magistrates and local authorities for collating data, without a notification under Section 3 of the Census Act, 1948 by the Centre.
HC verdict:
- The HC verdict has also been assailed on the ground that it violates the Puttaswamy judgment as it permits the collection of personal data by the State under an executive order.
- However, the HC had observed that the State is competent to frame a policy for better administration and that the policy is not arbitrary. Besides, States “cannot wait on their haunches” for the Centre to carry out a caste census.
- It also dismissed concerns about right of privacy of those surveyed by referring to the triple-test requirements in the Puttasamy judgment.
Understanding the MoEFCC’s U-turn
(GS Paper 3, Environment)
Why in news?
- In June, the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC) issued a notification merging offices of the Forest Survey of India (FSI), the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA), the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau (WCCB), and the Central Zoo Authority (CZA), and thus bring them under the Ministry.
Background:
- The NTCA is the managing authority of Project Tiger and India’s Tiger Reserves.
- The FSI is a scientific body that primarily deals with forest data.
- The WCCB is an enforcement authority. And the CZA’s purview is limited to the functioning of zoos.
What did the Ministry’s plan say?
- The idea for such reorganisation was announced during the COVID-19 lockdown and came under criticism from activists that it would render key environmental organisations “toothless”.
- For example, in the existing structure, the NTCA can oppose a forest clearance for an infrastructure project for diverting Tiger Reserve areas.
- The proposed merger would have rendered this difficult as the NTCA would have come under the Deputy Director General of Forests, who is in charge of the Integrated Regional Office and reports to the Ministry.
What was the Ministry’s rationale?
- Giridhar Kulkarni, a Belgaum-based wildlife conservationist, had filed a petition against this reorganisation plan in the Karnataka High Court in 2020, arguing that it would amount to a merger of entities and authorities that is impermissible in law.
- The MoEFCC replied that the notification does not amount to a merger and that the intention was to get the various authorities to function at 19 regional offices, under one roof.
- Following this assurance, the Karnataka High Court disposed of the petition but gave the petitioner the liberty to approach the Court if the merger was found to adversely affect the functioning of the various bodies.
- But more than two years later, the MoEFCC dropped the merger plan, likely owing to technical and administrative difficulties in merging the institutions in question.
What does the new notification state?
- The same notification also proposes to reorganise existing regional offices, and this idea too has come under criticism because it does not appear to be based on any objective criteria.
- For example, the Bengaluru regional office would have had jurisdiction over three States and a Union Territory with different geographic and ecological characteristics; Karnataka, Kerala, Goa, and Lakshadweep.
- Earlier, the Indian government announced a plan to merge Project Tiger and Project Elephant.
- It risked undermining the autonomy of the NTCA. Activists were also concerned about implications for Project Elephant given that it does not have any legal backing at present.
- Tiger Reserves are recognised under the Wildlife Protection Act 1972 but Elephant Reserves are not.
How is the Ministry changing?
- Broadly, experts articulated a need for disintegrated and dedicated efforts across the board, including to strengthen environmental monitoring functions.
- In recent years, the role and functions of regional offices of the Ministry have been widened both to process environmental approvals and monitor compliance of legally mandated safeguards during project construction, operation, and closures.
- As a result, such widened roles require additional funding and infrastructural support, but it remains unclear if such support has been provided.
