In a special appeal filed before the Allahabad High Court to challenge an order dated 29-05-2026 by a Single Judge whereby the petition was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had failed to challenge the order by which the employees of the Life insurance Company (LIC) were requisitioned for census duty, a Division Bench of Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi stayed the operation of the Zonal Officer’s order till the date of final hearing in the matter.
The matter was centred around an order dated 05-05-2026 by the Zonal Officer, Zone-1, Nagar Nigam, Kanpur. The prayer sought in the writ petition was to quash the decision of calling LIC employees for census duties in the upcoming Census 2027.
The Court held that the Zonal Manager, Kanpur, had no jurisdiction to requisition LIC employees under Section 4 of the Census Act, 1948, as was done by his order dated 05-05-2026 and said that the order was contrary to a 2011 Division Bench judgment whereby it was held that the source of power for such an order could be traced to Section 7 of the Census Act. After perusing Section 7(c), the Court stated that even though the state government, through its authorized officer, may requisition the staff of any establishment, firm, or factory for assistance in census operations, the same can only be for census operations within the premises of such establishment and not outside the premises.
Hence, the Court held that the Zonal Officer’s order prima facie was not within the parameters laid down under Section 7(c) of the Census Act. Further, regarding the Single Judge’s opinion that the ancillary prayer could not have been granted without a specific prayer to quash the Zonal Officer’s order, the Court found that the dispute was raised regarding this specific order and stated that the prayer in a writ petition must be considered in light of the petition’s contents.
The Court found the present appeal to be a case requiring a detailed hearing and that the Zonal Officer’s order was liable to be stayed. The Union and State’s contention that no interim order be passed since census operations are of national importance was also rejected by the Court. Holding the order prima facie bad in law, the Court stated that the legality of an order of any State authority is not dependent merely on the purpose of order but also on whether it complies with statutory requirements.
The operation of the Zonal Officer’s order was stayed till the next date of hearing. The matter has been listed for a final hearing on 06-07-2026.
