💥Mains Ready By December. Smash Mains & Smash PYQ Admissions Open
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Census

  • Ex-officials flag concerns over Census data quality, potential NPR, NRC link

    Why in the News

    Two administrative decisions on Census 2027 have drawn objections from former Census officials. The Registrar General and Census Commissioner of India (RG&CCI) notified 40 questions for the Population Enumeration phase on 14 August 2026, several of which mirror the rehearsal form of the National Population Register (NPR) used in 2019. The RG&CCI then advanced the Population Enumeration phase in the poll bound States of Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Uttarakhand and Goa on 5 September, while deferring it in violence hit Manipur. The objection is that the two decisions together degrade data quality and revive a link between the Census, the NPR and a National Register of Citizens (NRC). Section 15 of the Census Act, 1948 bars that use, and the 1951 Census is the precedent showing it happened anyway.

    What is the National Population Register?

    1. A register of residents: The NPR records persons residing in a local area, and it is generated under the Citizenship Act, with its data intended to be published.
    2. Its current scale: It was first created in 2011, updated in 2015, and already holds a family wise database of 119 crore residents.
    3. Its stalled status: It was to be updated alongside the first phase of the now scrapped Census 2021 and has been held back after opposition from political parties and civil society groups.

    What has changed in the Census 2027 design?

    1. The question set has grown: 40 questions were notified on 14 August 2026 for the Population Enumeration phase.
    2. The new fields are identity fields: They include particulars of a person’s parents including their names, religion, place of birth, Aadhaar, mobile phone number, voter identity and driving licence details.
    3. The resemblance is to a different exercise: Those additions mirror the questions asked in the 2019 rehearsal form of the NPR rather than anything in the previous Census schedule.
    4. The sequence has been reordered: Population Enumeration has been advanced in four poll bound States and deferred in Manipur, breaking the simultaneity a national headcount normally runs on.

    Why do former officials say the data quality will suffer?

    1. Migrants fall between two counts: Counting four States ahead of the rest of the country could lead to under enumeration of migrant workers, particularly those from Uttar Pradesh, since a person counted nowhere at the time of enumeration is not counted at all.
    2. Some questions serve no statistical purpose: Details relating to identity documents and vaccination history are already held in administrative databases, and it is not clear what statistical purpose their collection in a Census would serve.
    3. The link remains speculative rather than stated: A former Deputy Registrar General of India has stressed that any link between the Census and population registration activities remains speculative, while noting that the information now sought resembles NPR data.

    What separates the two exercises in law?

    1. The confidentiality bar: Section 15 of the Census Act, 1948 provides that records of the Census are not open to inspection nor admissible in evidence, and Census data can be used only for statistical purposes.
    2. Different statutes, different outputs: The NPR is generated under citizenship law and its data is meant to be published, which is the opposite disclosure rule from the one governing the Census.
    3. The 2019 practice went the other way: The update of the NRC in Assam in 2019 was not based on NPR data and required a separate data collection exercise of its own.

    What does the 1951 precedent actually show?

    1. The register was copied from the Census: The NRC was prepared across the country in 1951 by transcribing important Census data from the Census slips, using the same symbols and abbreviations.
    2. The two records were reconciled against each other: Missing NRC entries were copied from Census slips and missing Census slips were recreated from NRC entries under a special reconciliation exercise.
    3. It was designed as an administrative tool: The 1951 Census report for Assam, Manipur and Tripura records the register as a Census and administrative instrument rather than a citizenship verification exercise, intended to be maintained permanently and updated by village officials.
    4. It was never completed nationally: A countrywide NRC was never published for unspecified reasons, except in undivided Assam, which then also included Manipur and Tripura.

    Challenges to Census 2027

    1. A staggered count breaks comparability: Population figures collected at different reference moments cannot be compared across States without adjustment, and every downstream allocation rests on that comparison. Eg. Advancing enumeration in Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Uttarakhand and Goa places four States on a different reference point from the rest of the country.
      The Fix: Publish the reference date used for each State alongside the provisional totals, and state the adjustment method before the figures enter any allocation formula.
    2. Identity questions depress response quality: Asking for document numbers in a count that promises confidentiality invites non response and misreporting from precisely the groups most likely to be undercounted. Eg. The 2019 NPR rehearsal form, which the new questions resemble, drew organised opposition on exactly this ground.
      The Fix: Make the identity document fields optional and record the non response rate for each, so the degradation is measured rather than hidden inside the totals.
    3. Confidentiality is asserted but not enforceable by the respondent: Section 15 bars inspection and evidentiary use of Census records, and offers the person counted no remedy where the bar is crossed. Eg. The 1951 register was built by copying Census slips despite the same statutory bar being in force.
      The Fix: Provide a statutory penalty for onward transfer of individual Census records to any other register, enforceable on complaint rather than only at the department’s discretion.
    4. Enumeration timing collides with the electoral calendar: Running a household level count in poll bound States places enumerators and electoral officials in the same households in the same season, which invites conflation of two separate exercises. Eg. Uttarakhand is simultaneously running a Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls with a final roll due in October.
      The Fix: Separate the enumeration window from the notified election period by a fixed statutory interval, on the model of the silence period in electoral law.

    Conclusion

    The objection is not that a register is being built, but that the instrument being used promises confidentiality and the instrument it resembles promises publication. That precedent shows the two can be merged in practice with the statutory bar formally intact, and nothing in the present design forecloses that. The concrete markers to watch are whether the identity document fields survive to the final schedule, and whether the four advanced States are enumerated against a stated reference date the rest of the country can be compared to.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2009] Consider the following statements : 1. Between Census 1951 and Census 2001, the density of the population of India has increased more than three times. 2. Between Census 1951 and Census 2001, the annual growth rate (exponential) of the population of India has doubled. Which of the statements given abova is/are correct ? (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2 ANSWER: (d)”

  • Concerns over the Census questions

    Why in the News

    The Central government has notified the questions to be asked of every individual during the population enumeration phase of the 2027 Census. In a departure from past Censuses, the schedule seeks personal details that cannot be used to generate any useful statistics: the names of the parents of every individual, nationality as declared, the permanent residential address, the place of COVID-19 vaccination, the number of bank accounts held, and mobile, Aadhaar, voter identity and passport numbers. The same details are the ones required to prepare or update a population register. The contest is over whether a questionnaire built partly out of identifiers still serves the statistical purpose the Census exists for.

    What is a population census?

    1. The United Nations definition: A census is the total process of planning, collecting, processing, analysing, disseminating and evaluating demographic, economic and social data at the smallest geographic level, at a specified time, covering all persons in a country or in a well delimited part of it.
    2. Its output is statistics, not records: The exercise generates statistics for the use of the government in particular and society in general, so the information an individual gives is used only to compile the relevant statistics.
    3. Confidentiality is a founding principle: Principle 6 of the United Nations Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics requires individual data collected by statistical agencies to be strictly confidential and used exclusively for statistical purposes. India has adopted these principles.

    What is new in the 2027 questionnaire?

    1. Household relationships: Respondents must give the details of the parents of every individual, and of the spouses of the married persons in the household.
    2. Status and residence: Nationality as declared and the permanent residential address are to be recorded.
    3. A pandemic era question: The place of COVID-19 vaccination is to be recorded.
    4. Financial detail: The total number of bank accounts held by each person is to be recorded.
    5. Identifiers: Mobile number, Aadhaar number and voter identity card number are to be recorded if available, along with the passport number of Indian passport holders and whether the person holds a driving licence.
    6. The length of the schedule: The questionnaire runs to 40 questions, many of them requiring descriptive answers.

    Why have names never entered Census databases?

    1. A name identifies, it does not measure: An individual’s name has no relevance to the exercise beyond identifying the person during enumeration. Names have been placeholders and have not been present in Census databases.
    2. India has never computerised them: There have been no attempts in the Indian Censuses to computerise names at all.
    3. Other countries record names for a declared later use: Some countries include the name and open past Census data for genealogical study. Eg. Past data from the United States Census can be accessed 72 years after the exercise, and India has no comparable rule or policy.

    Which households cannot answer these questions?

    1. Institutional households: Wardens of hostels, old age homes and jails must supply the names of every resident along with the names of their parents.
    2. Students are counted where they are not present: Large numbers of children study away from home in hostels and as paying guests. February falls towards the end of the academic year, so they may not be at home and would not be eligible for enumeration at their normal households.
    3. Ordinary households have gaps too: A respondent may not know the details of grandparents living with them.
    4. Visitors and staff are also covered: Visitors and domestic servants living in a household for the entire duration of the enumeration period are to be enumerated there, and the respondent may be unable to obtain their details.

    What can the identifier questions actually produce?

    1. ‘If available’ is undefined: It is unclear whether availability refers to the household member concerned or to the respondent. Read as the respondent, the numbers will not reach the Census, since respondents are frequently housewives or elderly parents who do not hold these details for every member.
    2. The numbers do not tabulate: These are not data items usable for any tabulation, beyond determining whether such a number exists.
    3. The field cost is prohibitive: More than 30 lakh enumerators would have to sit with households to record these numbers correctly, and they may lack the time and patience to obtain the relevant records.
    4. The respondent carries no duty of care: The respondent is not a Census functionary, so an individual whose identifiers are disclosed by a household respondent has no protection against their misuse.

    What would the bank account question have to be to work?

    1. The tabulation it supports is narrow: The total number of bank accounts held by each person yields a distribution of persons by number of accounts, and little else.
    2. The same distribution exists elsewhere: For account holders, the number can be obtained by tabulating accounts against each Permanent Account Number (PAN), which is required to open a bank account.
    3. A simpler question meets the policy need: If the object is only to identify persons without any bank account, asking whether the person holds one is enough.
    4. The field reality: A schoolteacher appointed as an enumerator will struggle to get a correct count of accounts from upper class respondents, who may not answer even the simpler questions.

    Why was the nationality question dropped after 1961?

    1. Declaration does not establish status: Nationality as declared may serve no useful purpose, since a person residing illegally may declare Indian nationality.
    2. India tried it and abandoned it: The question was asked in the 1951 and 1961 Censuses and was discarded from 1971 onwards.
    3. A comparable decision abroad: The United States decided, after considerable debate, not to include the citizenship question in its 2020 Census.

    Is the Census being used to build the National Population Register?

    1. The proposal has a history: Proposals to update the National Population Register (NPR) during the 2021 Census exercise drew objections from several States.
    2. States control the field staff: The Census is conducted by enumerators appointed by the State government under Section 4(2) of the Census Act, 1948, so a State may refuse the use of its staff for work that is not part of the Census. The Citizenship Act says nothing about a State government’s role in preparing the NPR.
    3. The new questions fit the register, not the statistics: Details of parents, permanent address and nationality are useful for preparing or updating the NPR, which is to form the basis for preparing the National Register of Citizens. They add no statistics of their own.
    4. Extraction would breach confidentiality: Collecting the information through the Census questionnaire and later extracting it for another organisation within the government may violate the principle of confidentiality.
    5. The objection is to the route, not the register: Preparing a population register or a citizen register is unobjectionable and its uses are well recognised. The collection for it should run through a transparent process with a legal basis, without jeopardising the Census.

    What does the length of the schedule do to data quality?

    1. Respondent fatigue: The time a long descriptive schedule takes per household invites disinterest, and the respondent answers similar questions again for every individual in the household.
    2. Casual replies follow: A disinterested respondent supplies answers that are recorded as data, so fatigue enters the dataset rather than showing up as non-response.
    3. Enumerator workload: Recording names and addresses has significantly increased the enumerator’s workload.
    4. The output degrades: Loading the Census with questions that generate no statistics may seriously affect the quality of Census data.

    Challenges to the 2027 Census

    1. The decadal series carries a gap: The last completed Census was in 2011, so sampling frames, welfare targeting and constituency data have run for over a decade on an ageing base. Eg. Household surveys draw their samples from Census frames, which have not been refreshed since 2011.
      The Fix: Fix a statutory calendar for enumeration and for data release, so the exercise cannot be deferred by administrative decision.
    2. The general data protection regime does not cover this risk: Census records rely on the secrecy provisions of the Census Act. The general law carries wide exemptions for government processing. Eg. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 permits the Union government to exempt instrumentalities of the State from its obligations.
      The Fix: Notify an express purpose limitation for Census records that bars their transfer into any non statistical database.
    3. Digital self enumeration excludes the least connected: The 2027 Census offers self enumeration through a digital application, which the households most likely to be missed are least able to use. Eg. Internet access and smartphone ownership remain lowest among the poorest rural households.
      The Fix: Keep full enumerator coverage as the default and treat self enumeration as an additional channel rather than a substitute.
    4. Caste enumeration adds a classification burden: The 2027 Census will record caste, and caste names vary across regions, languages and spellings, which makes field coding unreliable. Eg. The 1931 Census, the last to enumerate caste comprehensively, recorded several thousand caste and sub caste entries.
      The Fix: Publish a pre coded State wise caste list with a residual open field, so enumerators record rather than classify.

    Conclusion

    The questionnaire stands notified, and enumeration will run on it unless the government revises the schedule before the field work begins. The unresolved point is not whether the state may build a population register, which nobody disputes. It is whether the Census, whose cooperation from a household rests on the assurance that answers become numbers and nothing else, is the right instrument to build one with. Every question that cannot be tabulated tests that assurance, and a household that begins to doubt it answers the rest of the schedule differently.

    Back2Basics: National Population Register

    1. What it is: A register of the usual residents of the country, prepared at the local, sub district, district, State and national level.
    2. Legal basis: It is prepared under the Citizenship Act, 1955 and the Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003.
    3. Who is a usual resident: A person who has resided in a local area for six months or more, or who intends to reside there for the next six months or more, irrespective of citizenship.
    4. Its status now: The register was first prepared in 2010 alongside the house listing phase of Census 2011 and was updated in 2015.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “No direct PYQ traced in the provided files”

  • Census advanced in four poll-bound States, formally deferred in Manipur

    Why in the News

    The Union government has advanced the population enumeration phase of Census 2027 in the poll-bound States of Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Uttarakhand and Goa, scheduling it from November 16, 2026 to January 4, 2027, ahead of the nationwide enumeration planned for February 2027. The same notification formally deferred the Census exercise in Manipur till further declaration. The reference date for the four States is fixed at 00.00 hours on January 5, 2027, against March 1 for the rest of the country and October 1, 2026 for Ladakh and the snow-bound areas of Uttarakhand, Jammu and Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh. The second phase carries 40 questions and includes an open-ended field for recording caste details. The tension is that a single count needs a single moment of reference, and the schedule now bends to the electoral calendar in four States and to a citizenship register demand in one.

    What does the revised schedule change?

    1. The legal basis: The notification was issued by the Registrar General and Census Commissioner of India under the Census Act, 1948.
    2. The order of operations in the four States: Residents have the option of self-enumeration through a dedicated portal between November 16 and November 30, ahead of the door-to-door survey, which begins on December 1.
    3. The revisional round: Population enumeration in the four States is followed by a revisional round from January 5 to January 9, 2027, immediately after the reference moment.
    4. The stated reason for the advance: The exercise is being completed in these four States before assembly elections due early next year.

    What does the second phase ask?

    1. The scale of the schedule: The second phase carries 40 questions, of which at least 13 are new compared with the 2011 Census.
    2. Caste is recorded without a fixed list: The schedule includes an open-ended field for caste details. Respondents may also decline to disclose their caste or state that they do not belong to any caste.
    3. The new identity and household questions: Spouse’s name, nationality, father’s particulars and mother’s particulars are being asked for the first time.
    4. The new asset, document and service questions: Digital literacy, permanent residential address, place of Covid-19 vaccination, number of bank accounts, passport number, availability of a driving licence and a mobile phone, and Aadhaar and voter ID numbers where available.

    Why has Manipur been left out?

    1. The deferral is open ended: The notification defers the Census exercise in the State indefinitely, with no revised date attached.
    2. The demand behind it: A large section of civil society groups from the Meitei and Naga communities has demanded that a National Register of Citizens (NRC) be compiled first, before the Census is undertaken in the ethnic violence-hit State.
    3. The communities involved: Manipur has three major communities, the Meitei, the tribal Naga and the Kuki-Zo, and the demand as reported comes from groups within two of them.
    4. What deferral costs: A State counted at a different time cannot be compared with the rest of the country on the same reference date, which is the property that makes Census data usable for allocation.

    What is the Opposition’s objection?

    1. The planning objection: The Congress has said the fresh notification shows shoddy planning, since the population enumeration due in February 2027 has been advanced in four States where elections were already known to be due.
    2. The timing objection: It has framed the sudden revision as driven by political calculation rather than statistical need, given how long the schedule had been settled.
    3. The caste question objection: It has argued that the caste question is deliberately very poorly designed and will render the whole caste census exercise meaningless.
    4. The procedural complaint: The Leaders of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha wrote to the Prime Minister on August 20, 2026 on the caste question, and no mid-course correction followed.

    Challenges to Census 2027

    1. An open-ended caste field cannot be aggregated: Self-reported caste names arrive in many spellings, synonyms and sub-group labels, and no total can be produced from them without a coding frame prepared in advance. Eg. The Socio Economic and Caste Census of 2011 threw up roughly 46 lakh distinct caste entries, and its caste data was never released.
      The Fix: Publish a draft State-wise caste list for public objection before enumeration, and code every response against that list at the point of collection.
    2. A delayed count ages every entitlement built on it: Welfare coverage fixed as a share of population continues to use the last enumerated population until a new one exists. Eg. Coverage under the National Food Security Act, 2013 remains anchored to the 2011 Census, so population added since then sits outside the ration entitlement.
      The Fix: Provide in the enumeration notification for automatic revision of population-linked entitlement ceilings once provisional totals are published.
    3. Self-enumeration presumes the capability being measured: A portal-first round shifts the first pass onto respondents who need a device, connectivity and the confidence to file. Eg. Digital literacy is itself one of the questions being asked in this schedule, which indicates it cannot be assumed across households.
      The Fix: Treat the portal response as one input into the door-to-door visit rather than as a substitute for it, and verify every self-filed record in the field round.
    4. The count competes with the election machinery for the same staff: Enumerators in India are largely school teachers and local officials, who are also the staff deployed on electoral roll work and poll duty. Eg. The advanced enumeration in the four States runs in the months immediately preceding their assembly elections.
      The Fix: Ring-fence the enumeration workforce from election duty for the enumeration and revisional rounds, and record the deployment so overlaps are visible.

    Conclusion

    The count is now running on two clocks, one set by the electoral calendar and one by the need for a common moment of reference. Comparability survives only if enumeration in each region closes cleanly before the next begins, and an advanced schedule in four States narrows that margin. The revisional round that follows the advanced enumeration is the last point at which its errors can be corrected. Manipur’s deferral carries no end date, so the country’s first count in over a decade will be incomplete until the demand that produced the deferral is settled.

    Back2Basics: Census Act, 1948

    1. It provides the legal basis for taking the Census in India and empowers the Centre to notify the schedule, the questions and the reference date.
    2. The exercise is conducted by the Registrar General and Census Commissioner of India, which functions under the Ministry of Home Affairs.
    3. Individual returns are confidential, are not open to inspection and are not admissible as evidence in any court; only aggregated data is published.
    4. Answering the Census questions is a legal obligation on the respondent, and giving false information or refusing to answer is a punishable offence.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “Consider the following statements : 1. Between Census 1951 and Census 2001, the density of the population of India has increased more than three times. 2. Between Census 1951 and Census 2001, the annual growth rate (exponential) of the population of India has doubled. Which of the statements given abova is/are correct ? (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2”

  • Centre’s rationale for not using OBC lists for caste enumeration is flawed, say associations

    Centre’s rationale for not using OBC lists for caste enumeration is flawed, say associations

    Why in the News

    Associations representing Other Backward Classes (OBC) have rejected the Union government’s stated reason for not using the Central and State OBC lists in the caste enumeration component of the 2027 Census. The government’s position is that those lists record classes rather than castes, so caste names cannot be drawn and codified from them. Castes other than the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes will instead be recorded through an open column, in which the enumerator writes down what the respondent states. The associations argue that a government which recognises these communities as OBCs for reservation cannot disregard their caste identities when it collects population data. What is contested is whether an enumeration run without a pre-coded caste frame can produce a usable OBC population figure at all.

    How would the two methods of enumeration differ?

    1. The open column method: Castes other than the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes are recorded as stated by the respondent, without a pre-coded list of caste names for the enumerator to select from.
    2. The list based alternative: Caste names would have been drawn from the Central and State OBC lists and codified in advance, so responses map onto a fixed set of entries.
    3. Where the lists already exist: The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes are enumerated against notified lists, which is the precedent the associations point to.

    What is the government’s reason, and how do the associations answer it?

    1. The stated rationale: The OBC lists identify backward classes rather than castes, so caste names cannot be lifted from them for enumeration.
    2. The associations’ core objection: The All India OBC Students’ Association (AIOBCSA) calls the class and caste distinction artificial, arguing that a government recognising these communities as OBCs for reservation and other affirmative action cannot then disregard their caste identities when collecting population data.
    3. Fix the lists rather than drop them: The associations say that if the existing lists are inadequate or carry inconsistencies for enumeration, the government should use experts to draw and rationalise the caste names from them, not “drop them altogether”.
    4. Administrative records already do both: The AIOBCSA points out that certificates and official records routinely identify communities by their specific social and caste identities, and that even Economically Weaker Section certificates identify the beneficiary through prescribed social or category criteria. Administrative classification and social identity therefore coexist in practice.
    5. A charge of bad faith: The OBC Public Representatives Forum said the justification adds to the perception that the government agreed to enumerate castes with no real intention of doing it properly.

    Why do the associations link this to the EWS estimate?

    1. The estimate behind EWS: When the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) quota was introduced, the government worked with an estimate that the population outside the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and OBCs was about 35 to 40 percent.
    2. What a rigorous count would do to it: The Backwards Classes Intellectual Forum argues that a scientific enumeration of OBC populations would show that estimate to be an overestimation.
    3. The alleged motive: The same body argues that the refusal to codify existing caste names and count caste group populations, as is done for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, is intended to cover up the basis on which EWS reservation was justified.

    Why has the OBC count been the core of the caste Census demand?

    1. The figure has never been counted: The OBC population across the country has only ever been estimated in India, based on the caste Census data of 1931.
    2. The demand was built on that gap: Enumerating the OBC population has historically been the principal argument driving the demand for a caste Census.
    3. The method is what is now questioned: Senior Opposition leaders have questioned the utility of the open column methodology for enumerating every caste other than the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.

    Challenges to caste enumeration through an open column

    1. Free text responses multiply into unusable entries: A column with no pre-coded frame collects spellings, surnames, sub castes and clan names as separate answers, and classifying them afterwards becomes a second exercise larger than the count. Eg. The Socio Economic and Caste Census, 2011 returned roughly 46 lakh distinct caste and related entries, and its caste data was never released.
      The Fix: Publish a codified caste directory built from the Central and State lists and State commission reports before enumeration, and let the open column carry only the entries that directory does not hold.
    2. No single classification governs across States: Central and State OBC lists differ, so the same caste name can carry backward class status in one State and not in another or at the Centre. Eg. Jats were added to the Central OBC list in 2014 and the inclusion was set aside by the Supreme Court in Ram Singh versus Union of India (2015), while several States continue to list them.
      The Fix: Record the State of enumeration against each caste entry, so the count can be read against the list actually applicable to that respondent.
    3. Data collected without a publication commitment invites contest: A count whose tables and methodology are not released cannot settle any claim, and every group then disputes its own number. Eg. Bihar’s caste survey of 2023 was challenged in court, and several communities publicly disputed the figures recorded for them.
      The Fix: Fix a statutory deadline for publishing the caste tables together with the methodology note.
    4. Self declaration can be strategic: Where recognition carries reservation benefits, the answer given to an enumerator responds to the benefit rather than to the record. Eg. Sections of the Maratha community in Maharashtra have pressed for recognition as Kunbi in official records in order to access OBC reservation.
      The Fix: Cross check declared entries against existing caste certificate records at the tabulation stage rather than at the point of enumeration.

    Conclusion

    The same administration recognises these communities by caste for the purpose of reservation and declines to name them by caste for the purpose of counting. That is the contradiction the associations have put on the record, and no procedural reason offered so far reconciles the two positions. The decision also determines whether the coming enumeration produces a number that can be used in policy or one that has to be reclassified before anyone can read it. What to watch is whether a codified caste directory is issued to enumerators before fieldwork begins.

    Back2Basics: Economically Weaker Section reservation

    1. What it is: A 10 percent reservation in government jobs and educational institutions for economically weaker sections outside the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes.
    2. Its constitutional basis: It was introduced by the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019, inserting Articles 15(6) and 16(6).
    3. How eligibility is set: Eligibility rests on income and asset criteria notified by the government, not on social or educational backwardness.
    4. Its judicial status: The Supreme Court upheld the amendment in Janhit Abhiyan versus Union of India (2022) by a majority of three to two.

    [2022, GS2, 10 marks] Discuss the role of the National Commission for Backward Classes in the wake of its transformation from a statutory body to a constitutional body.

  • Govt has deferred Census in Manipur amid calls for NRC to be carried out

    Govt has deferred Census in Manipur amid calls for NRC to be carried out

    Why in the News

    The Union government has decided to defer the 2027 Census in Manipur. The decision followed a meeting of the Union Home Minister with the Governor and the Chief Minister of Manipur, and the State government said it came out of discussions on the demand that the Census be held only after a National Register of Citizens (NRC), a register of persons verified as Indian citizens, is implemented in the State. Meitei and Naga organisations want citizenship settled before any population figure is recorded. Kuki-Zo organisations want the reverse order, arguing that the Census is the credible data source against which citizenship allegations should be tested. The count is contested because the same figures will eventually decide how Assembly seats are shared between the valley and the hills.

    Why is the Census being opposed?

    1. Citizenship and demographic change: Meitei civil society groups in the valley and Naga communities in the hill districts allege that migration from Myanmar and elsewhere has altered Manipur’s demographic composition. They want an exercise distinguishing Indian citizens from illegal immigrants before population figures are recorded.
    2. Displacement from the ethnic conflict: Thousands remain displaced more than three years after the violence that began in May 2023. Meitei groups say a count taken while people live away from their homes would record the consequences of displacement rather than the underlying population pattern.
    3. Political representation: Census figures will eventually govern delimitation, and Manipur has had no fresh delimitation implemented since the 1970s.

    How old is the NRC demand?

    1. It predates the current conflict: The demand existed before the May 2023 violence, and the influx from Myanmar and the conflict later gave it a sharper political and security dimension.
    2. A joint memorandum in 2022: In June 2022 the Coordinating Committee on Manipur Integrity (COCOMI), representing Meitei civil society, and the United Naga Council (UNC) jointly demanded an NRC and a State Population Commission.
    3. The Assembly endorsed it twice: The Manipur Assembly adopted a resolution seeking both on 5 August 2022, and reaffirmed it on 1 March 2024.
    4. The growth figures the resolution cited: The resolution recorded population growth of 153.3 percent between 1971 and 2001 and 250.9 percent between 2001 and 2011 in the hill districts, against 94.8 percent and 125.4 percent respectively in the valley. Those figures do not by themselves establish illegal immigration.
    5. An institution was created: The State government constituted the Manipur State Population Commission in February 2023.

    What did the Myanmar crisis add?

    1. Displacement across the border: Fighting in Myanmar’s Chin State and adjoining areas after the 2021 military coup drove thousands across the border into India.
    2. Ethnic links on both sides of the border: Many of those arriving belonged to Chin and related communities with ethnic and familial ties to the Kuki-Zomi population in Manipur.
    3. The State government’s framing: The Manipur government linked the influx to new settlements, poppy cultivation, encroachment and demographic change.
    4. The counter position: Kuki organisations disputed that framing, arguing that legitimate Indian citizens were being conflated with recent arrivals from Myanmar.
    5. A border policy change: The Centre scrapped the Free Movement Regime with Myanmar in February 2024, citing security and demographic concerns.

    What are the Meitei and Naga groups demanding now?

    1. A fixed sequence: The UNC stated on 18 August, “NRC first: No Census, No Delimitation Before Implementation of NRC in Manipur.”
    2. An old base year: It demanded an NRC with 1951 as the base year, followed by the Census and then delimitation.
    3. The demand cuts across party lines: The State Congress president, himself a former Chief Minister, supported the demand for an NRC before the Census on 19 and 20 August, placing the two main parties broadly on the same side.

    Why do the Kuki-Zo groups oppose it?

    1. A national exercise, not a State one: The Kuki-Zo Council called an NRC before the Census “premature and unjustified”, stating on 23 August that there is no provision for a community or a State government to unilaterally initiate a separate NRC in one State.
    2. Allegations should be tested against data: It argued that the demand rests on unsubstantiated allegations about the Kuki-Zo community, and that such claims should be tested against credible demographic data. The Census is the appropriate source of that data.
    3. It supports delimitation on verified data: The Council has backed delimitation once verified demographic figures exist.
    4. The documentary cut off is the underlying fear: Kuki, Zomi and Chin communities straddle the India-Myanmar border, so a register built on an old documentary cut off could raise doubts about people who have lived in Manipur for generations.

    Why does delimitation matter so much here?

    1. The present seat split: Manipur has 60 Assembly seats, 40 in the valley and 20 in the hills.
    2. The demographic map behind it: The State’s 16 districts divide broadly into hills, where Nagas and Kuki-Zomis predominate, and the valley, where Meiteis are in the majority.
    3. The map is more than fifty years old: The present political map goes back to the 1973 delimitation, which was based on the 1971 Census.
    4. Manipur was left out of the last exercise: A national delimitation based on the 2001 Census ran between 2002 and 2008, and Manipur, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland were excluded after the Centre deferred it in 2008, citing security concerns and challenges to the credibility of the 2001 Census data in the region.
    5. The disputed 2001 figures: In nine hill subdivisions the increase between 1991 and 2001 was over 40 percent, and in four it exceeded 100 percent.
    6. What the valley’s political class fears: A new Census followed by delimitation could move the 40:20 distribution to something closer to 35:25 or 30:30.

    Can an NRC be held only in Manipur, and what else is the Centre weighing?

    1. The usual national sequence is stalled: A nationwide NRC is supposed to follow an update of the National Population Register (NPR), a register of usual residents, and the government has not notified the NPR to be taken up with the 2027 Census.
    2. No legal bar on a State specific exercise: Section 14A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 vests the power to compulsorily register citizens and maintain the National Register of Indian Citizens in the Centre. No statutory requirement makes simultaneous nationwide deployment necessary.
    3. The decision is political rather than legal: The Centre could in principle notify the exercise for a particular State or border region, and the recorded position is that this is a political call.
    4. An alternative route already exists: A High-Level Committee on Demographic Change, announced in May this year, is examining demographic change arising from illegal immigration and other abnormal causes, and will recommend policy, legislative and administrative measures. Its findings could form the basis of a policy specific to Manipur.

    Challenges to holding the Census in Manipur

    1. Displacement distorts where people are counted: An enumeration records a person where they are living on the reference date, so a district hosting relief camps absorbs the population of the district people fled. Eg. Displaced Kashmiri Pandit families have been counted in Jammu and Delhi rather than in their home districts across successive Censuses.
      The Fix: Record a home district field for persons enumerated in relief camps, so displacement is visible in the data instead of silently altering district totals.
    2. A register built on an old base year excludes documented residents: Citizenship registration turns on producing legacy documents, which the poorest and the most mobile are least able to hold. Eg. Assam’s updated register, worked against a 1971 cut off, left 19,06,657 persons out of the final list published in August 2019, and the appeals process has still not concluded.
      The Fix: Publish the documentary standard and a binding appeal timeline before enumeration begins, so exclusion is contestable within a fixed period.
    3. A deferred count leaves the State on stale data: Allocations for welfare programmes are pegged to Census population, so a State that is skipped keeps running on figures more than a decade old. Eg. Coverage under the National Food Security Act, 2013 is still fixed against the 2011 Census population.
      The Fix: Notify an alternative statutory data source, such as updated ration and electoral rolls, for allocations in the deferred State until enumeration is held.
    4. The credibility of the count is itself contested in the region: A count that any side believes is inflated cannot settle the question it is being deferred to answer. Eg. Nagaland recorded decadal growth of about 64 percent in the 2001 Census and a fall of about 0.6 percent in 2011, and the earlier count was widely described within the State as inflated.
      The Fix: Publish subdivision level growth anomalies alongside post enumeration survey results, so a disputed count is audited rather than defended.

    Conclusion

    Deferring the count postpones the dispute without resolving either question behind it. The two demands cannot be met on the same timetable, since one side wants citizenship settled before people are counted and the other wants the count to test the citizenship allegations. A deferral also leaves the State without the current population data that its own programmes and its own representation ultimately rest on. What to watch is whether the Centre fixes a date for enumeration in the State or lets the deferral run open ended.

    Back2Basics: National Register of Indian Citizens

    1. What it is: A register of persons verified as citizens of India, maintained by the Centre.
    2. Its statutory basis: Section 14A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 empowers the Centre to compulsorily register every citizen and to issue national identity cards.
    3. How it is meant to be built: The rules contemplate verification of the particulars collected in the National Population Register to sort residents into citizens and doubtful cases.
    4. Where it has been done: The only State level exercise so far was in Assam, carried out under Supreme Court supervision, with the final list published in 2019.

    “[2009] Consider the following statements :

    1. Between Census 1951 and Census 2001, the density of the population of India has increased more than three times.

    2. Between Census 1951 and Census 2001, the annual growth rate (exponential) of the population of India has doubled.

    Which of the statements given abova is/are correct ?

    (a) 1 only

    (b) 2 only

    (c) Both 1 and 2

    (d) Neither 1 nor 2

  • ‘OBC lists were not used for Census as they featured classes, not castes’

    Why in the News

    The Union government has settled the 2027 Census on an open column method of recording caste, under which every caste outside the Presidential Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe lists is written down as the household states it. The Central and State lists of Other Backward Classes (OBCs) were considered as the alternative and rejected, on the recorded ground that the list of OBCs is a list of classes and not a list of castes. The Union Cabinet had approved the inclusion of caste in the Census forms a year after the Opposition campaigned for a caste census, and the need to enumerate the OBC population was that campaign’s main argument. The method now chosen produces no OBC count of its own, which is the point the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the Congress president are contesting. This is the first Census to enumerate caste beyond the Scheduled lists since 1931.

    What is the open column method of caste enumeration?

    1. The household’s own answer is recorded: The enumerator writes the caste name as it is stated, without matching it against a list drawn up in advance.
    2. The Scheduled categories stay list based: Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities continue to be enumerated against the corresponding Presidential lists, as has always been done.
    3. Classification is a separate, later step: The raw names collected are grouped into categories after enumeration is complete, rather than at the doorstep.

    Why were the Central and State OBC lists rejected?

    1. Several entries name something other than a caste: The lists carry entries describing occupational groups, settler groups, and a specific class of labourers.
    2. The examples cited are concrete: Officials pointed to “local borns” in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands and tea garden workers in Assam.
    3. Such entries are a minority of the lists: They sit among nearly 3,000 communities classified as OBC across the Central and State lists.
    4. The same community changes category across States: Several communities carried on OBC lists are classified as Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe depending on the State.
    5. The State survey route was assessed on the same test: The problem surfaced when the government examined whether the methodology of State conducted caste surveys, such as those in Bihar and Telangana, could be replicated nationally.

    What is the objection to the open column?

    1. It yields no enumerated list of communities: OBC groups and Opposition leaders want the communities named, listed and counted specifically rather than written in freehand.
    2. The 2011 precedent is the stated worry: The Socio Economic and Caste Census of 2011 threw up over 46 lakh caste names, which critics expect an open column to reproduce.
    3. The government has used that same result before: It cited the 46 lakh names as its reason for not releasing the caste data from that exercise.
    4. The utility of the method is what is questioned: The objection is not that the count will not happen, but that its output will not be usable for policy.

    Does the government’s own record support the reason it gave?

    1. A statutory body concluded the opposite: A 2015 National Commission for Backward Classes document held that a caste can be, and quite often is, a social class in India.
    2. That document treated caste as the workable starting unit: It recorded that caste represents an existing, identifiable social group, and that an exercise can begin there and then extend to other groups, sections and classes.
    3. The choice was made at the top of the system: Officials involved in the methodology recorded that each option carried its own advantages and drawbacks, and that the open column was finalised only after the alternatives were considered at the highest levels.

    Challenges to caste enumeration through an open column

    1. Spelling and synonym variants inflate the count: One community is recorded under several names across districts, dialects and languages, and each variant enters the data as a separate entity. Eg. Bihar’s 2023 caste survey recorded 215 distinct castes because its enumerators worked from a fixed list rather than a blank field.
      The Fix: Publish a standardised State wise caste directory before enumeration and map every write-in entry to it during data processing.
    2. The classification authority is not named in advance: Grouping raw names into Backward Class and other categories is a decision taken after the count by a body the enumeration design does not identify. Eg. An expert group was constituted in 2015 to classify the caste data collected in the 2011 exercise, and that data was never released.
      The Fix: Notify the classifying authority, its composition and its publication timetable before the first form is filled.
    3. Self reported caste responds to incentive: A household may report the name that improves its standing or its eligibility rather than the one it ordinarily uses. Eg. Karnataka’s 2015 socio economic and educational survey drew objections from dominant communities over its recorded counts and stayed unpublished for years.
      The Fix: Verify a sample of write-in entries against household level administrative records before the totals are finalised.
    4. The quality of the answer rests on the enumerator: A caste question asked without a fixed probe sequence produces a sub-caste from one household and a broader cluster name from its neighbour. Eg. Census enumeration is carried out by roughly 30 lakh school teachers and government staff deployed for a few weeks.
      The Fix: Script the caste question with a mandatory probe sequence and test every enumerator on it before deployment.

    Conclusion

    The method of collection is now settled. What is not settled is who converts several lakh written answers into a list of communities, and by what rule. That step, and not the column on the form, is what decides whether the exercise produces a usable Backward Class number at all. It sits outside the methodology the government has announced, and it has no published owner.

    Back2Basics

    1. The Census is conducted under the Census Act, 1948 and the rules framed under it, which make participation compulsory and the individual returns confidential.
    2. It is carried out by the Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner of India, which functions under the Ministry of Home Affairs.
    3. It is decennial, and the last completed round was in 2011, the 2021 round having been deferred.
    4. The 2027 round runs in two phases, houselisting followed by population enumeration, with a reference date of 1 March 2027 and 1 October 2026 for snow bound areas.

    “[2023, GS1, 15 marks] Why is caste identity in India both fluid and static?

  • Note on meeting over caste census rewritten after Ministry pushback

    Note on meeting over caste census rewritten after Ministry pushback

    Why in the News

    The Office of the Registrar General of India has rewritten its record of a meeting on caste enumeration after the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment objected to how its position had been minuted.

    What is the open ended caste question, and how does it differ from a drop down?

    1. An open ended question records what the respondent says: The enumerator writes down the caste name as reported, without matching it to any approved list at the point of collection.
    2. A drop down constrains the answer to a fixed list: The Census already uses drop down lists for the notified Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, where a legally settled list exists.
    3. The stated reason for the choice: The government’s position is that an open ended response is the only way to run the exercise without the state itself becoming an arbiter of caste identities.
    4. The cost is deferred, not avoided: The work of converting millions of individual responses into reliable, standardised caste data moves from the field to the stage after enumeration.

    How was the record of the June meeting rewritten?

    1. The Ministry offered the OBC list at the meeting: Ministry officials expressed willingness to share the list of Other Backward Classes (OBCs) maintained by the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) for the caste enumeration exercise.
    2. The first draft minutes did not carry the offer: The initial draft of the minutes prepared by the Registrar General’s office did not reflect that offer accurately.
    3. The circulated note recorded a flat denial instead: A four paragraph note circulated on 8 June stated that Ministry officials had informed the meeting that there is no constitutional mandate for the Ministry to maintain a caste list, and that no such list is available with it.
    4. The note then drew the operative conclusion: It recorded that in view of the absence of any list of castes, enumeration of castes in Census 2027 may not be possible using any pre defined list in the Census question.
    5. The Ministry read the wording as a trap: Ministry officials said the onus for not going forward with a pre defined list was being shifted onto them.
    6. The amended note was accepted: The Ministry sent a revised version on 11 June, and the Registrar General’s office accepted the revised notes on 30 June.

    What lists does the Ministry actually maintain?

    1. Two statutory lists, not a general caste list: The revised note recorded that the Ministry maintains the List of Scheduled Castes and the Central List of Other Backward Classes as mandated by the Constitution, and that no separate list of castes is required to be maintained.
    2. The Scheduled Caste list: It comprises 1,258 entries and had already been shared with the Registrar General’s office by a letter dated 25 September 2025.
    3. The Central OBC list: It comprises nearly 2,483 entries, and the Ministry said it would be provided to the Registrar General’s office if required.
    4. Where the assistance stopped: The note recorded that officials of the Department of Social Justice and Empowerment were unable to assist further, given the absence of any mandate to maintain a list of castes beyond those two.

    Why does the 2011 experience shape this decision?

    1. The last attempt produced unusable variety: Respondents in the 2011 Socio Economic and Caste Census (SECC) reported 46.7 lakh distinct caste names, against 4,147 recorded in 1931.
    2. The cost: That exercise cost about ₹4,900 crore.
    3. The caste data was never released: The SECC data was published by the Ministries of Rural Development and Urban Development in 2016, and the dataset on caste was excluded.
    4. Classification was outsourced and never completed: The raw caste data went to the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, which formed a group of experts under the then Vice Chairperson of NITI Aayog for classification and categorisation, and that data is yet to be made public.
    5. The government told the Supreme Court the data was unusable: Affidavits filed on 21 September and 14 December 2021 said the SECC 2011 data was inaccurate and marked by technical flaws.
    6. The Court recorded that position: On 15 December 2021 the Supreme Court noted that the affidavit before it states that the data as collated “is not accurate and is unusable for any purpose whatsoever”.
    7. The same failure is expected to recur: The assessment recorded inside the Ministry is that the 2027 count is set to repeat the failure of the previous exercise.

    How did the 2027 caste count come about?

    1. Cabinet approval reversed a standing position: The Cabinet Committee on Political Affairs approved caste enumeration in Census 2027 on 30 April 2025, conceding a long pending demand and reversing the government’s earlier position.
    2. The demand was first conceded in 2010: The then government promised caste enumeration alongside Census 2011 in May 2010 and referred the question to a Group of Ministers.
    3. It was then diverted out of the Census: Acting on that Group’s recommendations, the Union Cabinet decided in September 2010 to conduct a separate SECC instead of counting caste in the Census itself.
    4. The field timetable is already running: Population enumeration together with the caste census is scheduled across the country in February 2027, and it began on 1 September 2026 in hilly and snow bound areas to avoid winter difficulties.
    5. The Opposition objection is about usability, not about counting: The Leaders of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha argued that social justice policies cannot be effectively implemented without accurate data.

    Challenges to caste enumeration in Census 2027

    1. Open responses multiply into synonyms, sub castes and surnames: One community reports itself under several names across districts, and no field rule decides which of those names denote the same group. Eg. The Bihar caste survey of 2023 enumerated against a pre defined list of castes rather than an open field, precisely to avoid that outcome.
      The Fix: Publish the standardisation methodology and the mapping rules before enumeration begins, so the conversion is auditable rather than discretionary.
    2. The classification stage carries no statutory deadline: Raw responses become policy relevant only after grouping, and nothing fixes when that grouping must be completed or released. Eg. The Census Act, 1948 and its rules set the enumeration schedule and say nothing about publishing a caste classification.
      The Fix: Fix a statutory deadline for publishing classified caste tables, as already exists for the primary Census abstracts.
    3. Self reported caste can be reported strategically: Where a count is known to feed benefit eligibility, a respondent has an incentive to report the category that maximises entitlement. Eg. Reservation litigation regularly turns on disputed community claims to Other Backward Class or Scheduled Tribe status.
      The Fix: Delink the enumeration record from individual entitlement, using it only for aggregate policy design.
    4. Numbers alone do not satisfy the constitutional test: Population share does not establish that a group is socially and educationally backward, which is what the Constitution requires before reservation follows. Eg. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) fixed a ceiling on reservation and required backwardness to be demonstrated rather than assumed.
      The Fix: Collect the socio educational indicators the constitutional test needs in the same schedule as the caste question.
    5. Two arms of government own different halves of the exercise: The Registrar General’s office runs the enumeration and the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment holds the statutory lists, and neither is answerable for the output the other needs. Eg. The rewriting of the meeting note turned entirely on which of the two would be recorded as having ruled out a pre defined list.
      The Fix: Name a single accountable authority for the caste module, with the other body’s inputs recorded as statutory obligations rather than as offers.

    Conclusion

    The design of the caste question has been settled by default rather than by decision. Neither arm of government was willing to own the list a closed format needs, and the open format was what remained. The methodological problem that broke the last attempt is therefore untouched: responses will be collected freely and must still be grouped afterwards by someone. What to watch is whether the standardisation rules are published before enumerators go into the field, or arrive only after the data is already in.

    Back2Basics

    1. What it is: The National Commission for Backward Classes examines requests for inclusion in and exclusion from the Central List of Other Backward Classes and advises the Central government on them.
    2. Constitutional status: The Constitution (One Hundred and Second Amendment) Act, 2018 inserted Article 338B and gave the Commission constitutional status, replacing its earlier statutory basis.
    3. Composition: It consists of a Chairperson, a Vice Chairperson and three other members appointed by the President.
    4. States retain their own lists: The Constitution (One Hundred and Fifth Amendment) Act, 2021 restored the power of States and Union Territories to prepare and maintain their own lists of socially and educationally backward classes.

  • Amid ‘NRC first’ demand, Centre defers Census exercise in Manipur

    Why in the News

    The Centre has deferred the house listing phase of Census 2027 in Manipur, which was to begin on 1 September. The deferment answers a demand from Meitei and Naga civil society groups that a National Register of Citizens (NRC) exercise be carried out in the State before any count is taken. The Manipur High Court was hearing a public interest litigation filed by the Kangleipak Students’ Association and the International Peace and Social Advancement, along with a connected writ petition. It recorded an undertaking from the Centre that the operation would be postponed, and ordered that it remain in abeyance until the next hearing on 12 October. The tension is that a Census is a statutory national exercise run on a single schedule, and it has been suspended in one State on the argument that counting people before verifying citizenship fixes the wrong population base for future delimitation and resource allocation.

    What is the house listing phase of the Census?

    1. It is the first of two field phases: House listing records buildings, households and their amenities before the population enumeration that follows.
    2. It fixes the frame for the count: The list of houses prepared at this stage is what enumerators use to reach every household in the second phase.
    3. It runs on a notified schedule: The Centre issued a notification on 7 January 2026 providing for the exercise, under which States issue notifications of their own.
    4. Administrative boundaries are frozen before it starts: Manipur froze all its boundaries from 1 January 2026 to 31 March 2027 to prepare for the operation.

    How was the deferment actually effected?

    1. A high level review preceded the decision: A meeting chaired by the Union Home Minister reviewed the situation in Manipur, attended by the Governor, the Chief Minister and the Union Home Secretary.
    2. The undertaking was given in open court: The Deputy Solicitor General told the High Court that on the instructions of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner a decision had been taken to postpone the house listing operations.
    3. The January notification is to be formally modified: The Centre was to issue a fresh notification modifying the one that had provided for the exercise, and the court recorded this as an undertaking.
    4. The State kept its own notification in abeyance: Manipur told the court it would not commence house listing and would hold its 22 March 2026 notification in abeyance pending the Centre’s formal notification.
    5. Two grounds were cited: The Centre cited the demands from Meitei and Naga groups and the tenuous security situation in the State.

    What is the demand, and how long has it been pressed?

    1. The State Assembly has resolved for a register twice: Resolutions dated 5 August 2022 and 1 March 2024 sought the introduction and enforcement of the NRC in Manipur.
    2. The State government wrote to the Centre twice: Communications in January 2023 and June 2024 referred to concerns over illegal immigration and demographic change.
    3. Civil society leaders and legislators lobbied in Delhi: Delegations from 14 civil society organisations and a group of BJP MLAs travelled to press the demand.
    4. The Chief Minister recorded the acceptance: His office stated that the Centre agreed to defer the exercise considering the feelings and aspirations of the people of Manipur.

    Why do the Valley groups object to counting first?

    1. A count before verification would include the undocumented: The groups argue that a Census held before an NRC would place undocumented or allegedly illegal immigrants inside the population figure.
    2. The consequences run to seats and money: They contend the resulting figure could affect future delimitation and the allocation of resources.
    3. Opposition has been concentrated in the Valley: The demand has come principally from the Meitei dominated Imphal Valley, with Naga groups also pressing it.
    4. The boundary freeze itself triggered protests: It produced massive strikes, torch rallies and closure of educational institutions across the valley districts.

    Challenges to conducting Census 2027 in Manipur

    1. The population to be counted is displaced: Ethnic violence since 2023 has moved large numbers into relief camps, so the household’s usual residence is not where the enumerator will find it. Eg. Kuki-Zo and Meitei residents were displaced across the hill and valley divide and have not returned to their original homes.
      The Fix: Record a displaced household against its pre-displacement address with a separate camp flag, so the count and the entitlement do not diverge.
    2. Enumerators cannot cross the ethnic divide: Field staff are locally recruited teachers and government employees, and staff from one community cannot safely work in areas held by another. Eg. Movement between the valley and the hill districts has required security escort since the violence began.
      The Fix: Recruit and deploy enumerators within each administrative unit, and open self-enumeration through the Census portal wherever field access fails.
    3. Deferring one State breaks national comparability: A Census counts a population against a common reference date, so a State enumerated later yields figures that cannot be set beside the rest. Eg. The exercise has already slipped from its due year of 2021 to 2027.
      The Fix: Fix a single revised reference date for the deferred State rather than letting the schedule drift with the litigation.
    4. The register being demanded has no settled cut off date: A citizenship register requires a date before which residence establishes citizenship, and none has been fixed for this State. Eg. Groups in Manipur have pressed for 1951 as the base year, a date that appears in no law applying to the State.
      The Fix: Legislate a cut off date and an appeals machinery before any register exercise is contemplated, so the demand has a determinate object.
    5. A deferment invites the same demand elsewhere: Conceding a precondition in one State supplies a template for others to seek their own. Eg. Demands for citizenship verification ahead of enumeration have been raised in other Northeastern States.
      The Fix: Publish the criteria on which a State level deferment is granted, so the next such decision is a rule rather than a negotiation.

    Conclusion

    The Census calendar has been reopened by a demand the Census cannot itself satisfy, since an enumeration counts residents and does not determine citizenship. Manipur’s house listing now depends on the progress of litigation rather than on a notified date. The unresolved position is that the State has asked for a register whose legal machinery has been built for only one State in the country, and the Centre has deferred the count without saying whether it will build that machinery here. The thing to watch is the next hearing before the Manipur High Court, where the Centre must produce the notification it has undertaken to issue.

    Back2Basics: National Register of Citizens

    1. What it is: A register of Indian citizens, first prepared from the 1951 Census, listing the persons enumerated as citizens in that count.
    2. Legal basis: Section 14A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 and the Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003 provide for its preparation.
    3. Updated in Assam alone: The update ran under a separate schedule tied to the Assam Accord, 1985, using 24 March 1971 as the cut off date.
    4. Outcome of the Assam update: The final list published in August 2019 excluded about 19 lakh of roughly 3.3 crore applicants and has still not been notified by the Registrar General.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2009] Consider the following statements : 1. Between Census 1951 and Census 2001, the density of the population of India has increased more than three times. 2. Between Census 1951 and Census 2001, the annual growth rate (exponential) of the population of India has doubled. Which of the statements given abova is/are correct ? (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2 ANSWER: (d)”

  • Congress urges PM to scrap caste census questionnaire

    Congress urges PM to scrap caste census questionnaire

    Why in the News

    The Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha and the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha have written to the Prime Minister demanding that the questionnaire prepared for the caste census be scrapped. They have asked that a new questionnaire be prepared to ensure accurate enumeration of castes.

    What is being contested about the questionnaire’s design?

    1. The objection targets an open-ended format: The two leaders object to an open-ended format proposed for recording caste details, arguing it could allow the same caste to be recorded under different names, sub-castes, and linguistic variants, undermining accurate counts.
    2. They demand consultation before the survey form is finalised: The letter asks the government to formulate a new survey form only after consulting political parties, experts, and the public, rather than proceeding with the existing draft.
    3. The stated purpose is enumeration accuracy, not the census itself: The objection is to the questionnaire’s design, not to the decision to conduct a caste census, and the leaders frame the current format as an obstacle to the caste enumeration’s own stated purpose of social justice.

    Constitutional & Legal Angle

    • Article 15: Prohibits discrimination on grounds including caste and enables special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes.
    • Article 16(4): Enables reservation in public employment for backward classes that are not adequately represented.
    • Article 46: Directs the State to promote the educational and economic interests of weaker sections, particularly SCs and STs.
    • Article 340: Provides for a Commission to investigate the conditions of socially and educationally backward classes.
    • Article 17: Abolishes untouchability, making caste-related discrimination a key constitutional concern.
    • Privacy dimension: Caste is sensitive personal information, so enumeration also requires safeguards against misuse and unauthorised disclosure. UPSC has repeatedly tested the Right to Privacy under Article 21.

    Why Accurate Caste Data Matters

    • Reliable data → identify deprivation → better targeting of welfare → evidence-based reservation policy → social justice
    • Poor classification can lead to:
      • Under-counting of communities
      • Over-counting due to duplicate names
      • Difficulty comparing data across regions and time
      • Distorted assessment of representation and deprivation

    “[2009] Which one among the following South Asian countries has the highest population density ?

    (a) India

    (b) Nepal

    (c) Pakistan

    (d) Sri Lanka

  • J&K Census enumerators raise tech concerns

    Why in the News

    A readiness review for the Population Enumeration phase in Doda district recorded that Census enumerators and supervisors in the snow bound areas of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) hold mobile devices below the configuration the Census application requires. Census 2027 is India’s first digital headcount, and it runs on personal phones owned by school teachers and government employees rather than on equipment the state issues.

    What is the Digital Census 2027?

    1. First digital enumeration: Census 2027 is the first Census in India to be conducted digitally, with field data captured through a mobile application instead of printed schedules.
    2. Field workforce: Enumerators and supervisors are drawn mostly from school teachers and government employees, who record entries on their own handsets.
    3. Device specification: The application requires a minimum of 8 GB of RAM and Android 13 or above on the device used for Population Enumeration.
    4. Phased design: A self enumeration portal opens before field work, after which enumerators conduct door to door visits within a fixed window.

    What is self enumeration?

    1. Self enumeration: Self enumeration lets a household fill its own Census entries on an online portal instead of waiting for an enumerator to visit. The entry is verified later by the field functionary during the enumeration window.

    Why has device configuration become an enumeration problem?

    1. Hardware shifted to the enumerator: The Census application runs on the enumerator’s personal phone, so the capacity to count depends on assets the state neither owns nor issues.
    2. Specification threshold breached: Functionaries in the snow bound areas of Jammu and Kashmir were found holding phones below the 8 GB RAM and Android 13 requirement.
    3. Cost borne privately: The field workforce is composed of school teachers and government employees, so meeting the specification is a private expense rather than a budgeted input.
    4. Terrain compounds the gap: The affected districts are enumerated ahead of the rest of the country, which leaves the least time to replace or upgrade equipment.
    5. Resolution left open: The review recorded the shortfall for appropriate resolution without naming a procurement or substitution route.

    Why are Ladakh and the snow bound areas enumerated ahead of the rest of the country?

    1. Second phase advanced: The second phase of the Census in Ladakh and the snow bound areas of Jammu and Kashmir, Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh is being conducted ahead of the rest of the country.
    2. Weather window: Snowfall closes road access to these habitations, so the field round has to be completed before winter sets in.
    3. Self enumeration first: The self enumeration portal for these regions remains available from 17 August to 31 August.
    4. Field window: Door to door enumeration starts on 1 September and concludes by 30 September 2026.
    5. District level review: Doda district’s readiness for that window was reviewed at the Deputy Commissioner’s Office Complex under the Chief Principal Census Officer.

    How is the exercise being prepared for hard to count populations?

    1. Migratory populations: Special attention was directed to the enumeration of migratory populations, whose movement across the enumeration window produces both omission and double counting.
    2. Tribal communities: Tribal communities were named as a category requiring focused enumeration effort.
    3. Remote forest residents: Residents of remote forest areas were named alongside them, since habitations there fall outside routine administrative contact.
    4. Verification discipline: Enumerators and supervisors were directed to ensure that all entries are properly recorded, verified and cross checked.
    5. Field inspection: Charge officers and supervisors were instructed to conduct regular field inspections and quality checks.
    6. Awareness campaigns: District authorities were asked to intensify awareness campaigns through newspapers, pamphlets, social media and local outreach programmes ahead of enumeration.

    Why is the postponement of the Census in Manipur being demanded?

    1. Deferral sought: The principal Opposition party has sought postponement of the Census exercise in Manipur, citing continuing violence and the displacement of thousands of people.
    2. Displacement scale: Nearly 60,000 people have remained homeless since violence in the State began on 3 May 2023, with many still living in relief camps.
    3. Housing stock destroyed: Over 10,000 houses have been destroyed in the State.
    4. House listing defeated: Accurate house listing of thousands of homeless people living in relief camps is not practicable, so the record would capture a household structure that no longer exists.
    5. Postponement, not cancellation: The demand is for deferral until conditions become conducive, and not for cancellation of the exercise in the State.
    6. Raised in Parliament: The Inner Manipur Lok Sabha member said he had raised the matter in Parliament.

    Does a digital Census widen or narrow the count?

    1. Speed against reach: Digital capture shortens the gap between field entry and tabulation, and it makes the count conditional on device capability in the districts hardest to reach.
    2. Uniform standard on an uneven base: A single minimum specification treats a school teacher in Doda and one in a metropolitan district as equally equipped.
    3. Self enumeration favours the connected: An online portal transfers effort to the household, which advantages literate and connected households and leaves the rest dependent on a field visit.
    4. Displacement defeats the frame: A Census counts people at a usual place of residence, and conflict displacement breaks that anchor before any technology is applied.
    5. Errors travel further: A digital schedule locks an entry into a database at the point of capture, so an unverified record propagates instead of being caught at manual tabulation.

    “[2009] Consider the following statements:

    1. Between Census 1951 and Census 2001, the density of the population of India has increased more than three times.

    2. Between Census 1951 and Census 2001, the annual growth rate (exponential) of the population of India has doubled.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    (a) 1 only

    (b) 2 only

    (c) Both 1 and 2

    (d) Neither 1 nor 2