This order does not decide whether an OBC dropdown should be added, does not record any view on the merits of the petitioner's claim, and does not direct the Census authorities to adopt any particular design. It only routes the plea to the Registrar General and Census Commissioner as a representation.
- Case
- OBC Federation of India v. Union of India
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decision
- Bench
- Surya Kant (Chief Justice of India); Joymalya Bagchi; V. Mohana
- Case numbers
- W.P.(C) No. 1286/2026
- Outcome
- Final disposal of W.P.(C) No. 1286/2026 without expressing any opinion on merits, with liberty to approach the Registrar General and Census Commissioner of India. The underlying question of Census 2027 tool design remains undecided.
What the Court decided
On 28 October 2026, a three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant disposed of the OBC Federation of India's Article 32 writ petition seeking a direction that the recognised list of Other Backward Classes be pre-loaded as a dropdown menu in the digital tools for Census 2027.
The Court held that the issue highlighted by the petitioner essentially pertains to a policy decision, which can be effectively addressed by the policymakers. Without expressing any opinion on the merits, it disposed of the petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Registrar General and Census Commissioner of India, to whom a copy of the writ petition may be forwarded as a representation so that authority can look into the issue.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. The order records no direction to the Census authorities to adopt the dropdown, and no finding on whether the current tool design is deficient.
The Census 2027 design the petition challenged
The petitioner, describing itself as a registered society, approached the Court against the population enumeration schedule notified on 14 August 2026 for Census 2027. Its grievance concerned the caste question in the digital census tools, Column No. 10.
According to the order's summary of the petition, Column No. 10 provides for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and caste, but apart from Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes there is an open text field, so each person has to describe their caste in their own words. The petitioner sought a direction that the recognised OBC list be pre-loaded as a dropdown menu against that question.
The order does not reproduce the notified schedule itself, and it does not record any response from the Union of India: the record of proceedings lists no counsel for the respondents. This article therefore states the schedule and tool design only as the petitioner's case summarised in the order.
The petitioner's argument
The petitioner's counsel contended that an open text field will repeat the failure of the Socio-Economic Caste Census 2011, and that the Union of India or the statutory authority should add a dropdown menu for the selection of castes in the same manner as the practice adopted in the Socio-Economic Caste Census 2011.
That contention is recorded in the order as the petitioner's argument. The order itself makes no finding about the Socio-Economic Caste Census 2011, its design, or its results, and this article draws no conclusion about them either.
Why the Court routed the plea to the policymakers
The Court's reasoning is contained in a single paragraph: the issue highlighted, in its considered opinion, essentially pertains to a policy decision, which can be effectively addressed by the policymakers. On that basis it chose disposal with liberty over adjudication.
The form of disposal matters. By having a copy of the writ petition forwarded as a representation, the Court ensured the Census Commissioner receives the petitioner's full case, not merely a summary, while leaving the decision to the authority that administers the census. The order states expressly that it expresses no opinion on the merits.
What happens next, and what this order does not do
The petitioner may now approach the Registrar General and Census Commissioner of India, with its writ petition forwarded as a representation for that authority to look into the issue highlighted. Whether any dropdown is added, and in what form, is now for that authority to consider.
The order sets no deadline for the authority, imposes no interim restraint on the Census 2027 schedule, and decides nothing about the rights of any caste group or the correctness of the open text field. If the authority declines or the petitioner remains aggrieved, any further remedy would require fresh proceedings; this order grants no such liberty in terms.
BANTHRY ANALYSISFor law students
This is a compact example of judicial restraint in a policy-adjacent Article 32 petition: the Court did not say the plea was misconceived, nor did it convert a design suggestion into a mandamus. Disposal with liberty plus forwarding the petition as a representation is a middle path worth recognising when you read short orders.
Notice also what the order does not do: it does not examine the Census schedule, hear the Union, or evaluate the 2011 comparison. When a later exam or moot question cites this order, its ratio is narrow — design of census tools is for policymakers in the first instance — and anything broader would misstate it.
READING PROMPTSQuestions for a closer reading
- Why did the Court treat the dropdown plea as a policy decision rather than a direction it should issue?
- What exactly does the liberty granted to the petitioner allow it to do next?
- How does the petitioner's description of Column No. 10 differ between Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes entries and other caste entries?
