The Supreme Court on Tuesday adjourned hearing of a petition challenging the Karnataka Government’s Order (GO) scrapping off the nearly three-decade-old 4% OBC reservation provided to Muslims under Category 2B.
The case will now be heard by a bench of Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna on next Tuesday.
The undertaking given by the Karnataka government last week that no admissions or appointments will be made in accordance with the GO, will continue till then.
“Nothing irreversible will happen,” Solicitor General Tushar Mehta assured the Court when the case was initially heard last week. The Court then noted the SG’s submission that “no appointment or admission will be made on the basis of the impugned GO until 18.04.2023.”
The Court had also asked the State to file its affidavit in the matter.
The GO appears to be based on an interim report of the Karnataka State Commission for Backward Classes. According to the Court, the State might have waited for the final report before revoking the reservations granted to Muslims in the State. The impugned GO appears to imply that the decision-making process’s foundation is “highly shaky and flawed,” it stated.
“On the face, they (Muslims) have been enjoying their stance for a long period. According to the documents produced, Muslims are backward, and then suddenly it is changed,” Justice Joseph stated.
Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Dushyant Dave appeared on behalf of the Muslim community contended that reservations could not be made for political grounds. According to Dave, based on empirical evidence and material, Muslims constitute a backward population in Karnataka and are entitled to reservations.
The Karnataka government abolished the 4% reservation and distributed it equally between the Veerashaiva-Lingayats and Vokkaligas at 2% each.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi argued on behalf of the Vokkaliga and Lingayat groups that the issue was not just about revocation of reservations but also about allocating reservations to a different community. He claimed that granting an interim stay on the GO would be prejudiced to the Lingayats and Vokkaligas.
SG Mehta had also opposed the stay order; nevertheless, an undertaking was issued on behalf of the State government after the Supreme Court exhibited an inclination in staying the GO.
