Supreme Court’s decision on scrapping of 4% reservation for Muslims in Karnataka Muslim OBC Quota case

Today, the Supreme Court of India was hearing the matter related to the Karnataka Muslim OBC Quota. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Justice KM Joseph, and Justice BV Nagarathna heard the case and expressed their displeasure at the public comments made by Home Minister Amit Shah on the Karnataka Muslim OBC reservation matter during the Karnataka election campaign. The matter was mentioned before the Supreme Court bench by Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave appearing for the petitioners. The petitioners, in this case, approached the Supreme Court against the decision of the Karnataka Government to scrap the 4 percent reservation for Muslims in 2B Category of the Other Backward Classes category and grant benefits of increased quota to Vokkaligas and Lingayats in appointments and admissions to government jobs. 

During the hearing, Advocate Dave said, “None other than the Hon. Home Minister makes a statement that he has withdrawn reservation to the Muslims.” He also pointed out that the Solicitor General of India already made an undertaking before the top Court that such orders would not be implemented. Dave added, “It is contempt, according to me. They represent the same Government. It is a BJP Government in Karnataka.” To this, Justice Nagarathna surprisingly expressed, “If what you are saying is true, then we wonder, why when the matter is subjudice before the Supreme Court, there should be statements made by anybody as such.” SG Tushar Mehta further said, “If someone says there are principally against religion-based reservation, it is completely justified.”

Justice Nagarathna said, “You saying that four percent reservation is unconstitutional, from this podium as SG and counsel appearing in this case…You can make this statement. But someone else from a public place making a statement…completely different.” Further, SG sought an adjournment in the matter today on the ground that he would be engaged before the Constitution bench during the proceedings of the same-sex marriage case. The bench further listed the matter on July 25, 2023.

Also Read: Legal Articles