The stand of the Center is important because recently a delegation of ten parties from Bihar met PM Modi and demanded a caste-based census.
The Center has told the Supreme Court that the caste-based census of backward classes is “administratively difficult and cumbersome” and the exclusion of such information from the purview of the census is a “cautious policy decision”. The Centre’s stand assumes significance as recently a delegation of ten parties from Bihar, headed by Chief Minister Nitish Kumar, met Prime Minister Narendra Modi and demanded a caste-based census.Also Read – Pegasus Row: Supreme Court to set up expert committee for investigation; Decision will be pronounced next week
According to the affidavit filed in the Supreme Court, the government has said that there are many errors and inaccuracies in the Socio Economic and Caste Census (SECC), 2011. The affidavit was filed in the Supreme Court in response to a petition from Maharashtra. The Maharashtra government has filed a petition seeking the Center and other concerned authorities to make the SECC 2011 data related to Other Backward Classes (OBC) public, saying it was not being made available to it despite repeated requests. Also Read – Affidavit of the Center in the Supreme Court – The family will get a compensation of 50 thousand rupees on the death due to Corona
The affidavit, filed on behalf of the Secretary, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, said that the Center had issued a notification in January last year to decide the details of information to be collected for Census 2021 and it would include information related to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Including many areas were included but no other category of caste is mentioned in it. Also Read – Ban on driving old vehicles in these areas of Haryana adjoining Delhi-NCR, action will be taken against violation of rules
The government said the SECC 2011 survey is not an ‘OBC survey’ as alleged, but was a comprehensive process to ascertain the caste status of all households in the country. The matter was taken up on Thursday by Justice A. It came up for hearing before a bench headed by M. Khanwilkar, which fixed October 26 as the next date of hearing.