Census challenge

The notification for Census 2027 was finally issued by the Government on 16 June 2025. This represents a delay of more than six years as the notice for Census 2021 was issued on 26 March 2019. That notification has now been cancelled, and the government has named the present census “Census 2027.”

This also indicates that the government has finally admitted that the nation has broken its chain of 150 years’ history of uninterrupted census-taking. Now the government will have to decide whether it will continue the previous tradition of taking a census in the first year of each decade, or a tenyear interval from the present census, to take the next one in 2037. Section 3 of the Census Act 1948 provides the government with the power to notify its decision to take a census and its time. The best course of action in this context will be to continue the present convention of taking census at the beginning of each decade, as this will require only minor readjustment of the data.

Advertisement

The notification dated 16 June has not given any further information regarding the much-talked-about proposal of updating the National Population Registrars (NPR). The NPRs are prepared and updated under the provisions of the Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, framed under the Citizenship Act 1955. Under Rule 3 (4) of these rules, the Union Government is to issue an order stating the dates for preparation of NPRs. Similarly, rule 4 of these rules empowers the Central government to carry out house-tohouse enumeration for the collection of specified particulars from the persons, including their citizenship status.

Thus, it is for the Central government to issue a notification much prior to the beginning of house-tohouse enumeration for census 2027. It may be noted that NPR was first prepared in the year 2010, and thereafter these were last updated in the year 2015. Another notable absence visible in the context of the “Census 2027” notification is the information about the government’s decision to headcount the caste population. The caste populace was enthusiastic about the announcement made by the government on 30 April 2025. But thereafter, nothing came out. The government issued the notification under Section 3 of the Census of India Act 1948. The provision is that the government must announce publicly their decision to go for a census. Nowhere in the Act of 1948 has the word ‘census’ been defined. So, the provision of Section 3 is very broad, and the Union Government could have elaborated on their decision to take a census along with their intention to capture caste data.

But government avoided this perhaps thinking it to be too early. In this context, the government has to decide first about the modalities to be adopted for capturing caste data. At present, there are two lists of caste groups/communities, viz., 1) the Central list showing State-wise caste groups containing a total of 2,633 caste groups and 2) the list of each State. The present State lists together contain names of more caste groups than the existing Central list. In view of this, the Central Government would have limited scope to choose the Central list for the present census, because this would mean leaving out some of the caste groups/communities from enumeration that are already on the list and getting the admissible benefits from States.

This would open up a wide scope for litigation, defeating the purpose of conducting a census. On the other hand, accepting the State list for the census would mean more State compliance in the census pro – cess, especially concerning tho – se caste groups/communities which are not in the Central list. The government, although it has not come up with any information about the caste census, will soon have to comply with the provisions of Section 8(1) of the 1948 Act read with Rule 5(1) (c), when they will be required to notify the census schedules for public information. These schedules must also comprise the schedule prepared for capturing data of caste population. The basic purpose of enumeration of backward castes such as Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes, and OBCs, is to bring them up from the level of backwardness.

For this, the Constitution has provided various benefits and concessions to the communities belonging to SC, ST, and OBCs, including reservations in government jobs and reserved seats in government educational institutions, etc. So far, the quota system in both jobs and educational institutions is working effectively. Fixation of the size of the quota for job reservation, etc., for SC and ST communities is a matter that falls within the purview of the States. Almost every State in India has its legislation dealing with the size of the reservation quota for SC & ST populations. This is mainly done depending on the size of their population. In most cases, these State enactments were made during the 1970s and 80s, and therefore the size of the quotas is proportionate to the populations of the SCs and STs as recorded in the censuses of 1971 and 1981.

For example, in Andhra Pradesh the strength of the SC and ST populations was 16.41 per cent and 7.0 per cent, respectively, as per the 2011 census. Against this, the quota for SC and ST was fixed at 16.0 and 7 per cent, respectively, of the total vacant jobs. Similarly, the proportions of SC and ST populations in Gujarat were 6.74 per cent and 14.75 per cent, respectively. As against this, the job reservation quota was fixed at 7.0 and 15 per cent, respectively. Likewise in Karnataka, as against 17.15 per cent SC and 6.95 per cent ST populations, quotas were 16.0 and 7 per cent, respectively. This makes it amply clear that the exercise of fixation of quotas for reservation of jobs, etc., for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes was not much of a difficulty, as the population for both the categories is enumerated in successive censuses.

Quotas were fixed, keeping some room for accommodating future increments in the populations of both categories. At the time of the launch of the reservation policy, the concept of other backward classes was not in place, and therefore job reservation for them as a group was also not on the agenda. The demands for job reservation came up strongly only after the submission of the reports of the Mandal Commission on 31 December 1980. The commission in its report recommended, inter alia, 27 per cent reservation for jobs under Central government for the members of OBCs.

The recommendations of the report, however, were not implemented till 1990, the year in which the VP Singh-led government decided to implement the recommendations and accordingly made an announcement in Parliament. Immediately after the announcement, the Government issued an office memorandum declaring 27 per cent reservation of jobs for the people belonging to OBCs. However, this was challenged in the Supreme Court by a senior advocate, Indra Sawhney. A nine-judge Constitution bench had taken up the case of Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India.

The judgment was pronounced on 16 November 1992, which elaborately explains the constitutional provisions inherent under Articles 14, 15, and 16. It opened up a new vista in the matter of reservation of jobs for backward classes in India. Of the several critical aspects that were covered in the judgment, one important one was the fixation of the ceiling limit for reservation at 50 per cent. Now the real issues concerning the other backward classes will emerge once the census data pertaining to the caste are available.

The government has already made adequate publicity about the electronic mode of data collection in this census. This would help in processing the data quickly and thus it can be expected to be available for the public online soon. In this context, one thing that is very sure is that the census will record more caste population than what is expected and that will undoubtedly exceed the present limit of 27 per cent. The Mandal Commission recorded 3,743 caste groups comprising 52 per cent of India’s population, and the Supreme Court subsequently ordered that the Government move to reserve 27 per cent reservation in government for OBCs, but it should be in exclusion of the creamy layer, i.e., the socially advanced section among them.

The NSSO 55th Round (1999-2000) estimated the proportion of OBC population in the total population of India at 35.8 per cent. This estimate was revised upward during their 61st Round (2004-05) to 41 per cent, and in their 68th Round (2011- 12), the estimate was further revised upward to 43.1 per cent. Although these estimates are based on tiny samples, at present this is the only baseline data available to us. If we go by the rising trend as presented by these estimates, the coming census can be expected to record a population of the size of not less than 47 per cent of the nation’s total population.

(The writer is a former IAS officer, who retired as Secretary, Finance, Government of Assam)