LS polls 2024 phase-2: Voting kicks off for 88 seats including 14 in Karnataka

Bengaluru: The leaked contents of Karnataka’s long-awaited caste census suggest a significant policy shift—extending the creamy layer rule to Category 1 castes under the backward classes reservation list. This category includes some of the most disadvantaged nomadic and microscopic communities.

The commission, headed by Jayaprakash Hegde, has reportedly recommended that the creamy layer policy—already applied to categories 2A, 2B, 3A, and 3B—be extended to Category 1. The report notes that some groups within Category 1 have achieved considerable progress socially, economically, educationally, and politically, thus justifying the introduction of a filtering mechanism.

The panel emphasized the growing inequality within Category 1 itself, stating that children from impoverished farming and labourer families are unable to compete with the children of wealthier households in the same category.

“The competition is stiff here and there is a threat that this category may become one populated by the rich in due course if the creamy layer policy is not implemented,” the report reportedly states.

It further underlines that to fulfil the constitutional goal of equitable opportunities, the policy must be introduced across all categories of backward classes, including Category 1.

In a powerful courtroom exchange, the Supreme Court of India on Tuesday sharply questioned the Centre over controversial changes in the Waqf Amendment Act, especially the provision that allows non-Muslims to be part of the Central Waqf Council.

The hearing was conducted by a bench led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, and included Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan. The court is currently hearing 73 petitions filed against the amended law, which has stirred protests in several parts of the country.

Key Questions Raised by the Court

1. Should the Petitions Be Shifted to High Courts?

Chief Justice Khanna opened the hearing by asking:

•    Should these petitions be heard by a High Court?

•    What specific constitutional questions are the petitioners raising?

Petitioners Argue Violation of Religious Freedom

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal argued that:

•    The new law violates Article 26 of the Constitution, which protects the right to manage religious affairs.

•    Giving the Collector judicial authority under the law is unconstitutional, since the Collector represents the government.

What Is 'Waqf by User' — And Why It's Controversial

•    Sibal explained that ‘Waqf by user’ refers to properties that have long been used for religious or charitable purposes and are thus treated as Waqf, even if no written deed exists.

•    The new law removes this recognition if the property is government land or under dispute — which he said undermines centuries of Islamic tradition.

•    “If a waqf was created 3,000 years ago, they’ll ask for the deed,” Sibal remarked.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Singhvi added that nearly half of India’s 8 lakh Waqf properties (approx. 4 lakh) are based on this concept.

The Chief Justice acknowledged the complexity, noting:

“We are told the Delhi High Court is built on Waqf land. There is misuse, yes—but there are genuine Waqfs too.”

Major Flashpoint: Inclusion of Non-Muslims in Waqf Council

“Will Muslims Be on Hindu Boards? Say It Openly” — Chief Justice Asks Centre

One of the strongest moments in the hearing came when the court questioned the Centre’s move to allow non-Muslims on the Central Waqf Council.

The Chief Justice asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta:

“Are you saying you will allow Muslims to be part of Hindu endowment boards? Say it openly.”

This pointed question was aimed at highlighting perceived inconsistencies in how religious communities are treated in administrative roles concerning religious institutions.

 Centre Defends the Law

•    Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said the law was thoroughly debated and passed in both Houses of Parliament after review by a Joint Parliamentary Committee.

•    However, the bench asked:

“If a ‘Waqf by user’ was validated earlier by a court, does the new law now void that?”

The court observed that ancient religious structures often have no documentation:

“You cannot undo something that has stood for centuries.”

Petitioners Request Partial Stay

•    The petitioners clarified they are not seeking to block the entire Act, only some controversial provisions.

Concern Over Rising Tensions

The Chief Justice also expressed alarm over violence and tensions triggered by the law.
“It is very disturbing,” he said.

When Mehta said “they think they can pressurize the system,” Sibal responded, “We don’t know who is pressuring whom.”

What Happens Next?
The Supreme Court will continue the hearing tomorrow. The court has emphasized that while there are cases of misuse, many Waqfs are genuine, and religious freedoms must be protected under the Constitution.

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.