OBC Inclusion in Census Is a Policy Matter, Not a Court Direction: Madurai Bench Disposes of Writ Petitions

The Madurai Bench declined to interfere with a 2020 Union notification stopping caste-wise enumeration beyond SC/ST, holding that census policy is for government, not courts.

Two writ petitions filed before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, both seeking to compel the Union government to include Other Backward Classes in the House Listing Operation and Population Enumeration ahead of the decennial Census 2021, were disposed of on 27 August 2026. A Division Bench of Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice R. Sakthivel declined to quash or interfere with a September 2020 Union notification that had limited caste-wise enumeration to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Bench held that whether to include OBC or any other caste in the Census is a policy decision, and that courts cannot direct the form of that policy.

The Two Petitions and What They Sought

The first petition, WP(MD)No.14200 of 2020, was filed by Thavamanidevi. It sought a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents — including the Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, the Secretary of the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, the Registrar General and Census Commissioner of India, and the Chairman of the National Commission for Backward Classes — to consider her representation dated 28 July 2020. That representation asked for OBC category to be included in the House Listing Operation and Population Enumeration before the Census 2021 commenced.

The second petition, WP(MD)No.26376 of 2022, was filed by Brasil. It sought a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus. Besides directing consideration of his representation dated 12 August 2020 on the same OBC inclusion demand, it challenged notification No. 12/7/2020-SS dated 15 September 2020 issued by the Home Secretary and the Registrar General and Census Commissioner of India, asking the court to quash it as illegal and unconstitutional.

Both petitioners were represented by separate counsel: Mr. M. Thirunavukkarasu appeared for Thavamanidevi and Mr. A. Rajini appeared for Brasil. Mr. K.R. Laxman, Standing Counsel, appeared for respondents 1 to 5 in both petitions. Mr. B. Thanga Aravind appeared for the sixth respondent impleaded in WP(MD)No.14200 of 2020.

The Notification at the Centre of the Challenge

The notification dated 15 September 2020 represented a Union government policy decision to stop caste-wise population enumeration other than for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It was this decision that the second petitioner sought to set aside, and which the first petitioner's representation had already anticipated by demanding OBC inclusion before the notification took effect.

The Bench noted that a new Census procedure has since started and that the rules governing the present Census “alone will prevail.” This observation framed the practical context: even if the court had been minded to interfere, the operative framework had shifted to the new Census rules.

How the Bench Reasoned

Justice C.V. Karthikeyan, who authored the common order, identified the core question: whether a court can direct the government to include a particular community category in a census exercise. The Bench answered that it cannot. The inclusion of OBC or any other caste in the Census is, the Bench held, a policy decision lying with the government.

The Bench went further and pointed to individual autonomy in data provision. Persons who participate in the Census may choose not to state their caste. The court observed that “there cannot be any compulsion in this regard.” This added a second dimension to the refusal: even if the government were directed to include an OBC column, citizens retain the right not to furnish caste information.

On the impugned notification specifically, the Bench was unambiguous: it “clearly indicating that it is not for the Courts to indicate the nature of the policy to be taken by the Government.” The notification was not set aside.

Outcome

Both writ petitions were disposed of without setting aside the notification dated 15 September 2020. No costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petitions — WMP(MD)Nos.14130 of 2020, 19342, 20507, 20559 and 20560 of 2022 — were closed as a consequence.