The Supreme Court on Tuesday, March 24, 2026, declined to entertain a petition that sought directions for including a specific question in the 2027 Census form to separately count Denotified, Nomadic, and Semi-Nomadic Tribe (DNT) communities. The matter drew sharp observations from the bench, with Chief Justice of India Surya Kant expressing strong concerns over the intent behind such demands.

The case was heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. The petition had been filed by Dakxinkumar Bajrange, a leader representing the DNT community, along with others. After considering the arguments, the court dismissed the plea, stating clearly that such decisions fall under the policy domain and are therefore not subject to judicial intervention. The bench also granted the petitioners the liberty to approach the appropriate government authorities with their concerns.

During the hearing, the Chief Justice made pointed remarks, indicating that the petition raised deeper concerns beyond its stated objective. He observed, “These are very calculated moves. These are not ordinary and innocent claims that suddenly appear before us. This is a very deep-rooted move to divide the society; these agencies are not from within India. If we hold an enquiry, we will find out from where they are routed,” reflecting the court’s apprehension about possible larger implications behind such requests.

Representing the petitioners, Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave argued that Denotified, Nomadic, and Semi-Nomadic communities have historically faced injustice. He pointed out that these groups were labelled as criminal tribes during British rule under the Criminal Tribes Act of 1871, which led to long-standing social stigma and marginalisation. According to him, the current census format only includes categories such as Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Others, leaving no distinct recognition for DNT communities.

Dave stressed the need for a separate category in the census to ensure proper identification of these communities. He explained that such a classification would at least help generate reliable population data. In his words, the aim was “so that at least there is a population number that comes.” He further supported his argument by referring to past committee reports that recommended separate enumeration. He also highlighted that DNT communities were counted distinctly as far back as the 1913 census.

However, the Supreme Court was not persuaded by these submissions. The bench maintained that introducing further classifications could have unintended social consequences. Chief Justice Kant underlined this concern, stating, “India is a very unique country; instead of developing a casteless society, we want to create more and more classifications,” indicating the court’s preference for reducing divisions rather than expanding them.

In its formal order, the court clarified its position on the issue, stating, “In our considered opinion, the classification/ sub-classification sought by the petitioners in the enumeration process essentially falls in the policy domain, for which the decision has to be taken by the competent authority in the Union of India. It is not a justiciable issue. We deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, with liberty to the petitioners to pursue the matter before the competent authorities,” thereby closing the matter within the judicial framework.

The petition itself highlighted that DNT communities in India are estimated to comprise around 10 to 12 crore people. Despite their large population, they have not been separately counted in any census conducted after independence. This absence of official data, the petitioners argued, has made it difficult for these communities to access welfare benefits effectively, as many schemes rely on population-based data for allocation and planning.

It was also pointed out that multiple commissions have studied the condition of these communities over the years. Notably, the Renke Commission in 2008 and the Idate Commission in 2017 both documented the severe marginalisation faced by DNT groups. These reports recommended that the government undertake separate enumeration in the census to better understand their socio-economic status and address their needs more effectively.

While the court acknowledged the concerns raised, it remained firm that such matters must be addressed through executive decision-making rather than judicial orders. The ruling, therefore, leaves the question of separate enumeration open for consideration by the government, rather than the courts.