Karnataka Caste Census Report Recommends Creamy Layer Policy for Category 1

Bengaluru, Apr 11: In a significant development, the Karnataka Cabinet on Friday formally accepted the controversial Socio-Economic and Educational Survey, popularly known as the caste census, nearly a decade after it was conducted. The report will be taken up for detailed discussion in a special Cabinet meeting on April 17.

The survey was originally carried out in 2015 by the Karnataka State Commission for Backward Classes under the chairmanship of H. Kantharaj, and finalised in February 2024 by his successor, K. Jayaprakash Hegde. The long-awaited report—comprising 50 volumes of detailed caste- and community-related data—was placed before the Cabinet in a sealed cover, which was opened during Friday’s meeting.

Backward Classes Welfare Minister Shivaraj Tangadagi, while briefing the media, said the report would now be distributed to all Cabinet ministers so they could examine its findings ahead of the April 17 meeting. Though the government did not disclose the contents of the report, it sought to validate the survey’s legitimacy by presenting statistical data.

“As per the 2011 Census, Karnataka’s population was 6.11 crore. By 2015, when the survey was conducted, it had grown to an estimated 6.35 crore. The survey covered 5.98 crore people—a coverage of 94.17 percent,” Tangadagi said.
He added that only 37 lakh people, or 5.83 percent, were left out of the enumeration process.

Highlighting the scale of the operation, the minister said 1.6 lakh government officials participated in the survey. An expert committee was constituted, which developed 54 criteria to guide the data collection. The state government also engaged Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) to manage the survey data under a ₹43 crore agreement, with the total expenditure reaching ₹165 crore.

Law and Parliamentary Affairs Minister H. K. Patil announced that a special Cabinet session will be held on April 17 to deliberate on the report's contents. When asked about concerns over the completeness of the data, Patil responded, “Even in the national Census, some people are left out. A 94 percent coverage is a very significant achievement.”

The caste census remains a politically sensitive issue in Karnataka. Dominant communities such as the Lingayats and Vokkaligas have questioned the methodology of the 2015 survey, alleging undercounting. In contrast, Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and SC/ST groups have welcomed the report, arguing that it sheds light on social realities long ignored.

The Congress party had pledged to act on the caste census in its manifestos for the 2023 Karnataka Assembly elections and the 2024 Lok Sabha polls. National party leader Rahul Gandhi has also been advocating for a nationwide caste census.

The Cabinet’s acceptance of the report comes just days after Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s meeting with Rahul Gandhi in New Delhi, and the Congress Working Committee’s session in Ahmedabad.

Six Ministers Skip Cabinet Meeting

At least six ministers were notably absent from Friday’s Cabinet meeting. These included:

    S. S. Mallikarjun and Laxmi Hebbalkar (both Lingayats)

    M. C. Sudhakar and K. Venkatesh (both Vokkaligas)

    R. B. Timmapur (SC)

    Madhu Bangarappa (Idiga community)

However, Minister Patil clarified that despite their absence, all ministers have endorsed the Cabinet’s collective decision, regardless of caste or community affiliations.

In a controversial statement that has sparked alarm among legal experts and constitutional scholars, Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar criticized the judiciary for allegedly overstepping its bounds, particularly targeting the Supreme Court’s recent verdict that set deadlines for the President and Governors to act on Bills.

“We cannot have a situation where courts direct the President,” Mr. Dhankhar said, suggesting that the judiciary is interfering with the powers of the executive. He further described Article 142 of the Constitution — which empowers the Supreme Court to pass orders necessary to do "complete justice" — as a “nuclear missile against democratic forces, available to the judiciary 24x7.”

This incendiary metaphor has drawn backlash for implying that judicial independence — a cornerstone of democracy — is somehow hostile or dangerous. Critics argue that such rhetoric undermines public trust in the judiciary and risks damaging the careful separation of powers between branches of government.

While addressing the sixth batch of Rajya Sabha interns, the Vice President also referred to a serious incident involving a Delhi High Court judge, Yashwant Varma, from whose residence a large amount of cash was allegedly recovered in March. He questioned the delayed disclosure of the incident and criticized the absence of an FIR against the judge.

“An FIR in this country can be registered against anyone, any constitutional functionary, including the one before you... But if it is Judges, FIR cannot be straightaway registered. It has to be approved by the concerned in the Judiciary, but that is not given in the Constitution,” he argued.

He went on to question why judges, unlike the President and Governors, appear to enjoy immunity not explicitly provided in the Constitution.

“If the event had taken place at his house, the speed would have been an electronic rocket. Now it is not even a cattle cart,” he remarked, criticizing the pace of response and investigation.

Why These Remarks Are Dangerous

While scrutiny of public institutions is necessary in a democracy, the Vice President’s remarks are concerning for several reasons:

1.    Undermining Judicial Authority: By calling Article 142 a "nuclear missile," the Vice President risks portraying the judiciary as a threat rather than a guardian of constitutional rights.

2.    Challenging Separation of Powers: The suggestion that courts should not “direct” the President could erode judicial checks on executive inaction or overreach, especially when constitutional responsibilities are being delayed or ignored.

3.    Eroding Public Confidence: As the Vice President of India — also the Chairperson of the Rajya Sabha — such statements carry institutional weight. Attacks on judicial legitimacy can embolden other political actors to disregard court rulings, weakening the rule of law.

4.    Threatening Judicial Independence: Implying that judges should be more easily prosecuted, without proper due process and internal accountability, could be seen as an attempt to intimidate the judiciary.

5.    Fueling Distrust During Sensitive Times: At a moment when public trust in institutions is essential, these remarks may sow unnecessary suspicion and politicize judicial matters that require careful and independent handling.

The Vice President’s speech has ignited a vital conversation about accountability and judicial conduct. However, framing the judiciary as a rogue institution and questioning its constitutional powers without nuance is fraught with danger. Safeguarding democracy requires mutual respect and balance among all pillars of governance — executive, legislature, and judiciary. When this balance is disturbed through political rhetoric, it threatens not just institutions, but the very foundation of constitutional democracy.

New Delhi: Prime Minister Narendra Modi launched a scathing attack on the Congress on Sunday, accusing the party of indulging in minority appeasement and vote-bank politics over its opposition to the amended Waqf Act. Speaking at the inauguration of Hisar Airport in Haryana, the Prime Minister also questioned the Congress’s commitment to the Muslim community, asking why the party had never appointed a Muslim president or reserved a significant portion of election tickets for Muslim candidates.

“Congress has appeased only a few fundamentalists while keeping the majority of Muslims poor and uneducated,” Modi said. “If the Congress truly cares for Muslims, let them make a Muslim the party president and reserve 50 per cent of their Lok Sabha tickets for Muslim candidates. But they won’t. Their only aim is to snatch away others’ rights for political gains.”

He alleged that the Congress misused the Waqf law to benefit select groups and land mafias. “Lakhs of hectares of land under Waqf have been misused. If it had been used honestly, Muslim youth wouldn’t be forced to fix bicycle punctures for a living,” Modi remarked. “With the new amendments, Waqf Boards can no longer claim land belonging to tribals or marginalized communities. This is true social justice.”

Modi linked the Waqf law controversy to what he called the Congress’s legacy of undermining Dr B.R. Ambedkar. Remembering Ambedkar on his birth anniversary, the Prime Minister accused the Congress of sidelining him during his lifetime and attempting to erase his legacy after his death.

“Babasaheb Ambedkar stood for equality, but Congress infected the nation with the virus of vote-bank politics. They made him lose elections twice and tried to keep him out of the system,” Modi said, adding that every policy of his government is inspired by Ambedkar’s ideals.

He also took aim at the Congress’s stance on the Uniform Civil Code, noting that while the Constitution recommends a common civil code, the Congress never implemented it. “Today, Uttarakhand has implemented a Uniform Civil Code, and Congress is opposing it. This shows their double standards,” he said.

In response, Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge hit back, accusing the BJP of using Ambedkar’s name for political mileage while failing to implement his principles. “Dr Ambedkar emphasised education above all. What has this government done to realise his vision?” Kharge questioned. “They only speak against Congress, against Nehru, and all we have done. But what have they achieved themselves?”

Kharge also reiterated the Congress’s demand for immediate implementation of the Women’s Reservation Act, which mandates 33 per cent representation for women in Parliament and state assemblies. “When the bill was passed two years ago, we demanded SC, ST, and OBC women be included in the reservation. This remains our goal,” he said.

The exchange marks a sharp escalation in the war of words between the two national parties ahead of the upcoming general elections, with both sides invoking Ambedkar’s legacy to bolster their political narratives.