The Bench comprising Justices K.M. Joseph and B.V. Nagarathna directed that reservation for Muslims shall continue till further orders, and posted the matter for hearing on July 25.
—
ON Tuesday, the Supreme Court granted a further adjournment till July 25 to hear the plea that challenged and prayed for a stay on the contentious government order (GO) in Karnataka that scrapped the 4 percent reservation quota for Muslims as part of the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category in education and public employment in the state. In particular, the court directed that Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta’s statement of assurance recorded in the earlier interim order of the Bench, dated April 25, would continue till further orders.
On April 25, the division Bench comprising Justices K.M. Joseph and B.V. Nagarathna adjourned the matter on Mehta’s request to attend the matter before a Constitution Bench of the court. Particularly, Mehta had assured that the order of the Karnataka government, dated March 27, would not be implemented until the next date of hearing; and secondly, that the government’s earlier reservation notification, dated March 30, 2002, would continue till such next hearing date.
Today, Mehta, appearing for the state of Karnataka, requested the Bench for a further adjournment on account of his continued engagement with the ongoing Constitution Bench hearing (on marriage equality), and submitted that his statement of assurance given on the previous date would continue to operate.
Appearing for the petitioners, senior advocate Dushyant Dave prayed for the interim order to continue until further orders of the court, and not until the next date of hearing.
Further, Dave raised the concern that the Union Home Minister’s alleged frequent remarks claiming that the state government has withdrawn reservation for Muslims should amount to contempt. Justice Nagarathna remarked that when the matter is sub judice or pending before any court, no such statements about it ought to be made.
On Mehta denying the wrongness of any statement that claims that religion-based reservation is unconstitutional, Justice Joseph remarked that while as a Solicitor General and counsel in the matter, he could make such statements in court, it is not the same as an authority stating the same in a public space. Subsequently, Mehta vehemently contended that there is no statement made to his knowledge regarding the pending matter.
The Bench decided to not to further delve into the politics involved in the arguments. The matter is posted to be heard on July 25.
Background
On April 13, the Bench heard the plea to stay the GO, which reclassified the OBC category in the state by scrapping the 4 percent reservation quota for Muslims under OBC category II(B) and moving them to the Economically Weaker Sections quota. Additionally, the Vokkaligas and the Lingayats (both demographically, politically and economically dominant social groups within the state), previously included under categories III(A) and III(B), were granted an additional 2 percent each of the freed-up reserved seats, increasing their share in the OBC reservation pool.
The announcement of the GO was made a day after a division Bench of the Karnataka High Court had vacated a January stay on the state government’s order creating two new OBC sub-categories for the Lingayats and the Vokkaligas. The high court lifted the stay after Mehta assured the court that the new OBC sub-quotas would not affect the existing 15 percent quota for other OBCs.
Earlier, on the behalf of the petitioners, senior advocates Dushyant Dave, Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Prof. Ravivarma Kumar had argued that the GO was passed summarily, without any enquiry, empirical data or report to support it. The petitioners also alleged that the GO falsely states that at the time the OBC II(B) category was created and Muslims were classified as backward classes, there was neither any recommendation by any authority nor was there empirical data for granting them reservation.
It was also highlighted by the petitioners that with the approaching academic year, applications are required to be made for admission to all educational institutions for entrance exams. The GO deprives the Muslim community in Karnataka of availing the benefit of reservation, it was argued.
On the other hand, Mehta, for the state government, had claimed that the petitioners had failed to prove the need for an immediate stay and questioned the urgency of the stay, seeking time to file a reply to the plea.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Vokkaliga and the Lingayat communities, had argued that the present case pertains to not only the cancellation of the quota for Muslims, but also the grant of the quota to other communities, and urged for time to file a reply.
Karnataka’s Legislative Assembly elections are scheduled to be held on May 10.
