The Karnataka Government on April 25 won an adjournment again in the Supreme Court during the hearing of a petition challenging the State’s decision to scrap 4% OBC quota for Muslims and divide it between Vokkaliga and Lingayat castes ahead of the Assembly elections.
Appearing before a Bench led by Justice K.M. Joseph, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said the State’s assurance in court to make no appointments or admissions under the March 27 government order, which granted the two additional percentage of quota to the two castes, would continue in the meanwhile.
Explained | Why and how was the 4% reservation for Muslims under the OBC category scrapped in Karnataka?
The State had similarly sought an adjournment when the case came up for hearing previously on April 18.
The court finally adjourned the case to May 9.
Senior advocate Dushyant Dave, for petitioner Ghulam L. Rasool, objected to the adjournment.
“I strongly oppose this. They [State] will again seek adjournment and we will be affected,” Mr. Dave protested.
In an affidavit filed late on Tuesday, Karnataka justified the removing of the four per cent quota for Muslims, saying reservation on the basis of religion was unconstitutional. The timing of the decision (just before the Assembly poll) was immaterial.
“Timing of decision, etc, are immaterial without the petitioners clearly demonstrating that the reservation on the basis of religion is constitutional and permissible,” the State argued.
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.
Mr. Dave had then argued that the State had 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,” Mr. Dave had submitted.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, also for the petitioner, had said reports dating back from 1995 conclude that Muslims have the highest rate of illiteracy in the State and the community sees the highest dropouts from school.
Advocate Ravivarma Kumar, for the petitioner side, had added that other minority communities, including Christians, Buddhists, Jain, etc, continue in the backward classes list. “All except Muslims,” he said.
He had said the State had no power to transfer the community from socially and backward class category to the EWS category.
