The Karnataka government’s move to cancel the 4% reservation for Muslims has been put on hold until May 9 by the Supreme Court. The state has requested more time to submit a response.
Without any prejudice to the arguments on behalf of the state government, the Apex Court ruled that the previous framework of 4% reservation to Muslims would remain in existence until May 9th, 2024 when the matter would be heard next.
Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta appearing for the State, requested the Hon’ble Court to put the matter for hearing on some other day, as he had some other engagement before the Constitution Bench, which is hearing the same-sex marriage pleas.
On objection being raised by Dushyant Dave, appearing on behalf of petitioners, that the hearing had already been deferred four times, the Court agreed with Dave and recorded Mehta’s Submission.
The matter is posted for further hearing on May 9th, 2024.
The groundless decision was taken by Karnataka Government
The government headed by Chief Minister Basavaraj Bommai has made significant alterations to Karnataka’s reservation system, eliminating the 4% quota previously assigned to Muslims, in anticipation of the critical upcoming Assembly elections.
Back on 27th March 2024, a sudden decision was taken by the Karnataka Government to withdraw the 4% quota offered to Muslims, under the 2B category, and the same be equally distributed between Vokkaligas and Lingayats, the dominant communities of the state. The Muslims would now be grouped under the 10% Economically Weaker Section, consequently competing with Brahmins, Jain, Mudaliyars, Vysyas, and others.
Two new reservation categories of 2C and 2D for Vokkaligas and Lingayats, respectively, had been created last year during the Belagavi Assembly session.
The move to please the vote banks is quite clear on the part of the Basavaraj Bommai government, as there have been additional hikes in reservation quota for SC from 15 to 17% and for ST from 3 to 7 %.
Response by the indignant Muslim community
The decision was not welcomed by the Karnataka Sunni Ulema Board, which ultimately decided to fight its way legally against the government order. According to Shafi Saadi, chairman of the Karnataka State Board of Auqaf, based on the Sachar Committee and the Mandal Commission, the Muslim community in the state is more backward than SC and ST communities.
He further said that the government’s move is unfair and not legally valid. If the Muslims are grouped under the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), they would not receive their righteous share in reservation.
SC criticizes the state government for the hasty move
On a previous hearing on April 13, 2024, before Hon’ble Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna, the bench then opined that prima facie the state government’s decision appears to be “shaky and flawed” and based on fallacious assumption.
The Karnataka government was further instructed to halt any admissions or appointments that are based on the new reservation policy until the upcoming court hearing on April 18th.
Lashing out at the way the state government made the move to take away the 4 percent reservation from Muslims, the Bench asked, why did the government decide the withdrawal based on an interim report and why it did not wait for the final report. The Bench further asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing on behalf of the state, that, “What was the great Hurry?”
The bench noted that the state acted hastily by issuing the GO based on an interim report, while the final report of a cabinet sub-committee was still pending. Additionally, previous reports had already categorized Muslims as a socially and educationally disadvantaged group. The court added that if the backward commission reports have no worth, they should be discarded. The government ought to have conducted a study or exercise on this matter.
The bench asked Mehta if he was arguing that reservation based on religion is not allowed by the constitution, and questioned how Christians and Jains in Karnataka were still able to receive reservation benefits based solely on their religion. Mehta promptly responded that any kind of reservation based on religion is incorrect and that the state would implement corrective actions.
