The Karnataka High Court has allowed the state's socio-economic and education survey to proceed, but with the crucial stipulation that participation must be entirely voluntary. This ruling, delivered on September 25, 2025, comes as a relief to both the government and those opposed to the survey, providing partial clarity amidst concerns about potential coercion and data privacy.

The court has explicitly directed the Karnataka State Backward Classes Commission, the body overseeing the survey, to issue a public notification clarifying that participation is voluntary and that citizens are under no obligation to disclose any information. Enumerators must inform individuals of their right to refuse participation at the outset. Furthermore, enumerators are prohibited from pressuring or persuading anyone who declines to participate.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice CM Joshi also laid down strict conditions regarding data confidentiality. The Commission must ensure that all data collected during the survey is protected and kept confidential, and it cannot be disclosed to anyone after the exercise is complete. The Commission is required to file an affidavit within one working day, detailing the steps taken to ensure the confidentiality of the collected and stored data.

The High Court's order addresses a batch of writ petitions challenging the survey, with petitioners raising concerns about data privacy, the manner in which the survey is being conducted, and allegations that it is essentially a caste census. Senior Advocate Vivek Subba Reddy argued that the collection of personal information, particularly after the KS Puttaswamy case on the Right to Privacy, was problematic. He contended that the survey risked leaving personal data in an "uncontrolled field" and amounted to an invasion of privacy.

The state government, represented by Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, argued that the survey is a socio-economic and educational assessment, falling within the state's legislative competence. Singhvi pointed out that the petitioners had not challenged Article 342A(3) of the Constitution, nor sought a stay on Sections 9 and 11 relating to Backward Classes. He also noted that the petitioners had not identified any specific errors in the survey or claimed that the government lacked the authority to conduct it.

Additional Solicitor General Aravind Kamath, representing the central government, stated that citizens are not obligated to respond to the survey. He also questioned the benefit of the survey, the methodology used to classify 1,561 castes, and how the government fixed the numbers.

The court addressed concerns about the survey handbook, which did not explicitly provide households with the option to refuse participation. Professor Ravivarma Kumar, representing the Commission, clarified that Column 10 of the handbook allowed for recording "information refused" and that enumerators were instructed to record only the answers provided.

Chief Minister Siddaramaiah had announced the survey, led by Madhusudan Naik, Chairman of the Backwards Classes (BC) Commission, with the goal of understanding the socio-educational status of the state's population. The survey aims to cover approximately seven crore people, and was scheduled to be completed between September 22 and October 7, 2025.

The High Court's interim order underscores the importance of voluntary participation and data protection in the socio-economic survey. By ensuring that citizens cannot be forced to disclose information and mandating strict confidentiality measures, the court seeks to balance the government's need for data with the fundamental rights of individuals. The Commission must now act swiftly to implement the court's directives and reassure the public that their privacy will be protected throughout the survey process.