The Supreme Court on April 13, 2023 recorded in its order an oral assurance given by the Karnataka government that no admission or appointment is going to be made till the next date of hearing on April 18 on the basis of a Government Order issued on March 27.
The order divided the four per cent OBC Muslim quota between Vokkaligas and Lingayats in the State.
A Bench of Justices K.M. Joseph and B.V. Nagarathna also issued notice to the State, represented by Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta, and representatives of the Vokkaliga and Lingayat communities, represented by senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi. Mr. Kapil Sibal appeared in a separate petition, which was mentioned for urgent hearing in the morning before the Chief Justice of India.
The petition was tagged and would be heard along with the current petition by Justice Joseph’s Bench on April 18.
The petition challenging the order was filed by L. Ghulam Rasool, represented by senior advocates Dushyant Dave, Gopal Sankaranarayanan and advocate Kumar Dushyant Singh, who argued that the reservation benefits given to poor Muslims in the State have been taken away in one stroke ahead of the State Assembly elections due soon.
The court allowed the State and Mr. Rohatgi to file counter affidavits in three days. Mr. Mehta and Mr. Rohatgi argued that the court should not stay the order without hearing them in full.
The petition argued that the Muslim community in Karnataka has been excluded from the State list of Other Backward Classes for the purposes of reservations under Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution, and has instead been transferred to the list of communities eligible to claim reservation in the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category.
“The quota of 4% assigned to the Muslim community as a backward class under category II(b) has been allocated to the communities in categories II(c) and II(d) (2% each), in addition to the quota that was already available to them when they were placed in category III(a) and III(b) (4% and 5% respectively),” the petition said.
The net outcome of the March 27 order was that the Muslim community was not entitled to any reservation in the State list as a backward class, while the communities that were earlier in categories III(a) and III(b) are now entitled to reservation to the extent of 6% and 7% as part of categories II(c) and II(d) respectively, it contended.
Notably, the only group featuring within category II (b) of the list of backward classes as per this order was ‘Muslim’. It is also pertinent to note that Vokkaliga castes and the Lingayat castes formed part of Categories III (a) and III (b) respectively
Unlawful and liable
Mr. Dave argued that the exclusion of the Muslim community from the list of backward classes in Karnataka was unlawful and liable to be set aside as the community was consistently treated as a socially and educationally backward class in the State of Karnataka since 1921.
“There is no quantifiable data to suggest that the community is now socially and educationally advanced,” he argued.
“The decision to exclude the Muslim community is ultra vires Article 342A(3) (socially and educationally backward classes) read with the Karnataka State Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1995 as it is not based on any report or advice of the Backward Classes Commission,” the petition said.
The reservation in favour of Muslim community was not on religious lines but rather on account of the community being socially and educationally backward, the petitioner argued.
“The identification of the Muslim community as a socially and educationally backward class is approved by the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney versus Union of India judgment of 1992. The exclusion of the Muslim community from the list of backward classes on the ground that reservation in favour of religious sects is not constitutionally permissible is therefore misconceived in law. Further it is discriminatory and constitutionally mala fide as other religious communities continue to be in the list of backward classes in Karnataka,” Mr. Dave and Mr. Sankaranarayanan submitted.
The inclusion of Muslim community in the EWS list is unlawful, because the Muslim community in Karnataka continues to be socially and educationally backward, whereas its inclusion in the the EWS category implies that the community is not socially and educationally backward, Mr. Dave said.
