Write Comment     |     E-Mail To a Friend     |     Facebook     |     Twitter     |     Print

SC takes exception to public statements made about pending issue of scrapping of 4% Muslim quota in Karnataka

The Supreme Court on May 9 said sub judice cases should not be “politicised” after a petitioner alleged on Tuesday that Home Minister Amit Shah has made public statements about the scrapping of the 4% quota for Muslims in Karnataka ahead of the Assembly elections.

“Why should such statements be made by anyone when the matter is sub judice?” a Bench of Justices K. M. Joseph, B. V. Nagarathna and Ahsanuddin Amanullah asked.

Senior advocate Dushyant Dave, for petitioner Ghulam Rasool, said the statements are being made by none other than the Home Minister.

“They are proudly saying that they have withdrawn [the quota]…” Dave said.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta objected vehemently to the submission, saying the Court had not been “told about the context, content or anything”.

Shah had said there was no provision for reservation on the basis of religion in the Constitution, and the 4% quota was unconstitutional. This had led the ruling BJP government in the State to scrap the reservation.

The Solicitor General said a person was fully justified to say he was principally against religion-based reservation. Mehta said he was not for bringing politics into the Court.

“We just want discipline to be maintained…when a matter is pending before the Court…” Justice Nagarathna remarked. Justice Joseph recounted that in 1971 the West Bengal Chief Minister was held for contempt for holding a press conference defending a rationing order that was the subject matter of a challenge before the Court.

The Bench said there was a marked difference between a counsel arguing in Court and a person making a statement of a case sub judice in a public space. The State brought up the right to free speech, but the Court said a reservation issue pending in Court ought not to be politicised.

But Mehta said it was the petitioner side who was politicising the issue in Court.

The Bench adjourned the case after Mehta assured that appointments or admissions would not be made in the State on the basis of the State Government order of March 27, which divided the 4% quota equally between the Vokkaliga and Lingayat castes, for the time being when the case was pending in the Supreme Court.

In a hearing on April 13, Justice Joseph had prima facie remarked that the State’s decision to scrap the quota for Muslims was based on “absolutely fallacious assumptions”. Justice Joseph had pointed out that Muslims, for a very long period, were treated as a ‘more backward’ community.

“They were sandwiched somewhere between the ‘most backward’ and ‘backward’ communities. Suddenly you have taken reservation benefits away from them… I have to speak my mind here, so that you can respond… What strikes me as a student of law is that the order is based on absolutely fallacious assumptions,” Justice Joseph had orally observed.

Dave had then argued that the State removed Muslims from the backward class list and included them under the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) category without any empirical data collected or study done to support the move. The March 27 government order to scrap the Muslim quota in the State was based on an “interim” report from the Karnataka State Backward Classes Commission.

He had submitted that the inclusion of Muslim community in the EWS list illegally implied that the community was not socially and educationally backward. “After 50 years, they removed the reservation for Muslims overnight and gave it to somebody else. This was done just two days before the State Assembly elections were announced. You want to favour Vokkaligas and Lingayats, do that. But don’t take away reservations given to Muslims... They don’t want to displease others, but we are dispensable,” Dave had submitted.