New Delhi: The Supreme Court Tuesday disapproved of statements made by Union Home Minister Amit Shah over the scrapping of the Muslim reservation in Karnataka during an election rally ahead of the 10 May election.
A three-judge bench led by Justice K. M. Joseph observed such statements should not be made by anyone on a subject which is pending consideration before the court.
“Why, when matter is sub judice, should such statements be made by anyone?” noted the bench, also comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathana and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, advising political functionaries to exercise caution while making speeches on issues that are sub judice.
The bench was hearing a petition filed against scrapping of the 4 per cent quota of the Muslims in Karnataka by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government. The petitioners had complained about Shah’s statement in which he credited the BJP for doing away with the Muslim reservation.
As per the new government policy, the Muslim community will be now eligible for reservation only under the 10 per cent Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) category. The 4 per cent quota for them under the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category is distributed equally among the Veerashaiva-Lingayats and Vokkaligas.
Senior advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for the petitioners challenging the scrapping of the quota, informed the bench that Shah was making statements everyday. “Home Minister says we have scrapped it. Mr Mehta (solicitor general) represents the same party. It is contempt of court,” Dave said.
This prompted the bench to remark: “When matter is sub judice and before this court, such statements should not be made.”
“If this is really true, why are such statements being made? There has to be some (control) … by public functionaries. When matter is sub judice and before this court, such statements should not be made,” Justice Nagarathna remarked.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who at the outset urged the court to adjourn the matter, rebutted Dave’s allegations and said he “cannot respond to political allegations”.
“I cannot shout like my learned friend,” he said, questioning the opposite side’s criticism. Mehta said Dave chose not to disclose the content and context of the Home Minister’s statement.
Dave opposed Mehta’s request for an adjournment, accusing the Karnataka government of “forum shopping.” “I can see why they do not want to take it up,” Dave said.
The senior advocate said he was ready to place the statements on record, and added that the solicitor general is already aware of the remarks.
At this point, Mehta said that as a court officer, he opposed any religion-based reservation and it was unconstitutional.
Dave shot back saying that the reservation in Karnataka was not religion-based.
His high-pitch arguments were objected by Mehta, who urged the bench to “control” the senior counsel. “Court cannot let this become a fish market. So far, no judge has controlled him — that is the problem. Some judge will have to,” the solicitor told the bench.
However, the court told Mehta that it “cannot permit politicisation like this”. It listed the matter for further hearing on 25 July, after Mehta assured the court that the earlier reservation regime would prevail for now.
When Dave again repeated his assertion on the adjournment, Mehta once again said: “Some sanity must prevail. (This is) Complete politicising. There is no such statement to my knowledge. But in the manifesto, one is entitled. Even I cannot be instructed as to how to argue in a vitiated atmosphere.”
As the hearing concluded, Justice Joseph said: “Public statements on this (issue) should not be made.”
On the last date of hearing, the SC had questioned the logic behind the scrapping of the 4 per cent reservation for Muslims in Karnataka. It had orally observed that the government relied on an interim report rather, without waiting for a final report on the issue.
The court had declined to stay the state’s decision after Mehta assured the court that no appointments or admissions will be made pursuant to the government order in question till the next date of hearing.
(Edited by Tony Rai)