Ahead of the crucial Karnataka Assembly elections, the Karnataka government removed Muslims from the 2B Backward Classes category, under which the community received 4% reservation and pooling them under the EWS quota, by the March 27 GO.
AGENCIES / NEW DELHI
The Supreme Court on Thursday observed that the Karnataka government’s decision to scrap the 4% OBC quota for Muslims is “prima facie shaky and flawed.”
The Basavaraj Bommai-led BJP government undertook that no fresh appointment or admissions will be made in terms of the contentious government order (GO) until the court hears the matter next on April 18.
Admitting a clutch of petitions that have challenged the validity of the March 27 GO, a bench of justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna expressed their tentative opinion, adversely commenting against the manner in which the state government decided to do away with the 4% OBC quota for Muslims and distributed it equally to two dominant communities, Veerashaiva-Lingayats and Vokkaligas.
“Prima facie, on the basis of the documents that are before us, it appears that the foundation of your decision-making process is highly shaky and flawed…Because it is on the basis of an interim report. Why could you not wait for the final report? What was the great hurry?” the bench asked solicitor general Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the Karnataka government.
According to the bench, the state showed “haste” in issuing the GO based on an interim report when the final report of a cabinet sub-committee was still to come through and all the previous reports had termed Muslims a socially and educationally backward class.
“What’s striking to us as students of law is whether this order proceeds on absolutely fallacious assumption…The community was identified as socially and educationally backward in three previous repots and were given reservations for nearly three decades. How can you subscribe to the correctness to a government order which turns a blind eye to these reports and is in teeth of such reports?” it asked the S-G.
On March 27, the Karnataka government made the change, which is widely seen as a move aimed at pleasing two dominant backward classes ahead of the state elections om May 10.
Mehta, on his part, said that the government would justify its decision by filing a comprehensive affidavit and bringing on record all the relevant papers. The law officer added that there is no provision in the Constitution to provide reservation on the basis of religion, and that eligible Muslims were still being given the benefits of reservations under economically weaker sections (EWS) now. Mehta resisted any interim order staying the GO, arguing that the petitioners, which comprised members of the Muslim community, had failed to show if any irreparable damage would be caused to them by giving the state three days to bring on record its affidavit.
The bench retorted: “This is not about religion. It is about socially and educationally backward classes. The 4% reservation is totally knocked out and the percentage of those who already had it has increased. There is a class of persons whose benefits are taken away by a stroke and on the basis of an interim report,” it lamented.
The court further remarked: “All the backward commission reports should be thrown in the dustbin if they don’t have any value. The government should have carried out a study here. They should have conducted an exercise.”
At one point, the bench also questioned Mehta whether his argument was that religion-based reservation is constitutionally impermissible, and if so, how Christians and Jains were still eligible for reservation benefits in Karnataka solely on the basis of their religion. Mehta was quick to reply that any religion-based reservation is wrong and that the state would take corrective measures.
While the petitioners in the case, represented through senior counsel Dushyant Dave, Kapil Sibal and Gopal Sankaranarayanan, pressed for an immediate stay of the GO, senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi appeared for the Vokkaliga and Lingayat community members and opposed the plea. Rohatgi said that the rights of the two communities will be affected by a stay order and thus, the top court must have all the relevant facts before it at the time of making such decisions.
During the hour-long hearing, the bench repeatedly observed that the state government should hold its hands and not act in terms of the GO until the matter is heard at length, promoting S-G Mehta to give an undertaking that no irreversible step will be taken till the next date of hearing , April 18.
“We record S-G’s statement that no admission or appointment is going to be made till April 18, 2023, on the basis of the impugned GO,” the bench recorded in its order while giving Mehta and Rohatgi time till April 17 to put on record their replies to the petitions.
Muslims were given 2B reservation (for moderately backward classes) in 1994 during HD Deve Gowda’s tenure as chief minister after multiple state commissions, including the O Chinnappa Reddy Commission, classified them as socially backward.
Ahead of the crucial Karnataka Assembly elections, the Karnataka government removed Muslims from the 2B Backward Classes category, under which the community received 4% reservation and pooling them under the EWS quota, by the March 27 GO.
As a result, reservation for Vokkaligas and other castes in the 2C category went up from 4% to 6%, while reservation for Lingayats and other castes increased from 5% to 7% in the 2D category (for backward classes). Christians and Jains are also classified under the 2D category as per the government order.
Following the Cabinet meeting on March 24, CM Bommai announced the scrapping of the quota, saying: “There is no provision under the Constitution for reservation to religious minorities … It was struck down by the court in Andhra Pradesh. Even Dr B R Ambedkar had said that reservation was for castes.”
Even as the decision that sparked intense political debate, Union home minister Amit Shah lauded the Bommai government a day later when he attended an event in Karnataka. He said: “Reservation granted to minorities was not constitutional. There is no provision in the Constitution to give reservation based on religion. The Congress government, due to its appeasement politics, granted reservation for minorities.”