The Wire Staff 
New Delhi: The Supreme Court today, May 9, expressed disapproval over public functionaries, including the Union home minister, making campaign speeches on the Karnataka government’s move to remove the 4% reservation for Muslims on the Other Backward Classes list when the issue is pending before the court.
LiveLaw reported that a bench comprising Justices K.M. Joseph, B.V. Nagarantha and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah verbally expressed their displeasure at such public statements, which were brought to its attention by Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave.
“None other than the Honorable Home Minister makes a statement that he has withdrawn reservation to the Muslims”, Dave said. “It is contempt, according to me. They represent the same government. It is a BJP government in Karnataka,” he added.
The Wire had reported how in late April, Union home minister Amit Shah, while addressing a public meeting – a ‘Vijay Sankalp Sabha’ – at Chevella in Rangareddy district of Telangana, promised to end “anti-constitution Muslim reservation.”
Dave also noted that the Solicitor General, on behalf of the government, has already said that the decision will not implemented until the election is over.
The apex court had earlier taken the Basavaraj Bommai government’s decision apart – and said in oral observations that it prima facie found that the state’s action was based on “absolutely fallacious assumptions”.
The 4% reservation was reassigned to Karnataka’s powerful caste groups – Lingayats and Vokkaligas – taking their quota to 5% and 7%, respectively. Muslims were moved to the EWS (economically weaker sections) category which has a total of 10%, which they will share with a few groups like the Jains and Brahmins.
In court today, Justice Nagarathna said the court wondered why when the matter is sub–judice before the Supreme Court, there should be statements made by anybody.
When the Solicitor General asked who the statement was being attributed to, Dave said, “Amit Shah said 4% reservation for Muslims was unconstitutional and the BJP had removed it.”
“If someone says they are principally against religion-based reservation, completely justified,” SG Mehta then said, according to LiveLaw. Justice Joseph, however, cited how in 1971 the chief minister of Bengal had been held for contempt of court for defending an order that had been challenged before court.
The SG repeated this statement on considering “religion-based reservation unconstitutional.”
“You are the Solicitor General, you are appearing in the matter. In an open court you can make that statement, but somebody else from a podium in a public place making a statement is completely different…We may have reservations about reservations but we can’t let it be politicised in this manner…,” Justice Joseph said.
SG sought to impress that the matter was “being politicised before the court.”