Survey not mandatory

• AG tells court that response shall be at the will of people
• He defends TS govt’s right to hold such a survey
• Survey falls under Central Act, says Assistant SG
• Judge directs that the two pleas be admitted and listed

Hyderabad: Justice Vilas Afzulpurkar of the High Court at Hyderabad on Thursday took on file two writ petitions on the household survey to be conducted by the Telangana State government. He, however, recorded the statement of State Advocate-General A Ramakrishna Reddy that the response shall be at the will of the residents of the State and that it shall not be a compulsion.

As the Advocate-General made it clear that the government has the right to protect citizens’ rights and also the power to conduct the survey to see how its beneficial schemes were implemented, the judge saw no reason to stall the scheduled survey.

The Advocate General argued that the propaganda unleashed against the survey was led by middlemen who benefited from the misuse of schemes. He reminded that the government had undertaken similar surveys in 1995 and 2011 and placed the earlier government orders.

Justice Vilas Afzulpurkar asked B Narayana Reddy, Assistant Solicitor General, about the stand of the Union of India. Reddy said that prima facie the survey was covered under the Central Act. The judge expressed a doubt whether this 2008 Act was only an enabling act. He admitted the writ petitions and directed that they be listed for final hearing. In a separate development, even the High Court would be closed on the day to facilitate the survey.

Rajasekhar Tulasi, a practising advocate, and Seetha Lakshmi, a house wife, moved the High Court in two separate writ pleas. R Ragunandan Rao, a senior counsel, pointed out that the survey could only be in accordance with the provisions of the Collection of Statistics Act, 2008, and the Collection of Statistics Rules 2011. He argued that the said enactment occupied the field totally and consequently the State of Telangana would not have any residuary executive power under Article 162 of the Constitution of India. He pointed out that the rules prescribe the method and methodology to be used for collecting statistics. Raghunandan Rao, in the course of his arguments, pointed out that a nodal officer was to be appointed. Whenever, any department in a State Government wishes to collect statistics, it would be required to first consult the nodal officer in the State and the nodal officer shall render advice as may be necessary to avoid any unnecessary duplication. After such consultation, a notification is to be issued within a gap of at least 15 days between the notification and the communication of advice. The petitioners complained that no such notification has been issued till date. They also voiced concern over the right of privacy of the citizen. The information given by the citizens, including the petitioners, would be available in the public domain as the respondents are seeking to utilise the said information for allegedly weeding out beneficiaries who are not entitled to various welfare schemes of the State Government, they complained. The State cannot obtain the personal information of the petitioners under the guise of a survey for statistical purposes and then turn around and place that information in the public domain where it can be misused. Jandhyala Ravishankar, counsel for Rajasekhar Tulasi, pointed out that the manual circulated to enumerators required the officers to verify the bank passbooks, property details, sources of income which amounts to intruding into the fundamental right of privacy.