JOIN US'Religion-based quota unconstitutional': Karnataka government defends move to end Muslim quota in SC
The Karnataka government defended before the Supreme Court its "conscious decision" to scrap reservation on the sole basis of religion for Muslim community, saying it is unconstitutional and contrary to the mandate of Article 14 to 16 of the Constitution of India.
Such a decision is also against the principles of social justice and secularism, it said.
The state government, however, pointed out the groups within the Muslim community who were found to be backward and found mention in Group I of the 2002 reservation order continued to enjoy the benefits of reservation.
"Merely because reservations have been provided in the past on the basis of religion, it is no ground to continue the same for perpetuity, more so when it is on the basis of an unconstitutional principle," it said, contending that to provide the quota to the community was not justified.
Maintaining that the power to classify a group of citizens as Socially and Educationally Backward Class (SEBC) has to be constitutionally exercised in accordance with the provisions of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution, it contended that assuming for the moment that any of the commissions had recommended for the inclusion of Muslims as Backward castes, the same does not denude the power of the State Government to take a decision in accordance with law.
In an affidavit to the challenge to the validity of its March 27 order, the state government said the power has been constitutionally conferred upon the state government to provide for protection to the Backward Classes.
The government asserted that reservation can be provided to the Socially and Educationally backward classes in society who have been historically deprived and discriminated against within the society. "The same cannot be equated with an entire religion," it said.
The Karnataka government also pointed out there is no reservation given to Muslim community on the basis of religion as a whole in the Central List.
"Even throughout the country, it is believed verily, except State of Kerala, there is no state that provides for reservation for the Muslim community as a whole," the state government said.
There are various communities from the Muslim religion who are included in the SEBC which also continues to be the case in Karnataka. As such, the same in itself shows that the reservation solely on the basis of religion is not the practice followed anywhere in the country except Kerala and in the State of Karnataka, till recently, it added.
"Reservation solely on the basis of religion is also contrary to the principles of social justice. The concept of social justice aims to protect those who are deprived and discriminated against within the society. Including within the said ambit an entire religion would be an antithesis to the concept of social justice and the ethos of the Constitution. Therefore reservation cannot be extended to any community on the sole basis of religion," it said.
The provision of reservation on the basis of religion would also be contrary to the concept of secularism. Further it would be violative of right to equality and non-discrimination on the basis of race, religion, caste, gender etc, it added.
The state government further said the issue of reservations has anyway undergone a radical shift with the introduction of reservation on the basis of economic criteria (EWS) by virtue of the 103rd Amendment. It is pertinent to state that the said amendment has been upheld by this Court in Janhit Abhiyan Vs Union of India, (2022). Therefore, the Muslim community suffers no prejudice as they can avail the benefit of EWS reservation which is 10 per cent.
In the case of Andhra Pradesh, the Supreme Court permitted the reservation for only limited identifiable communities amongst Muslims and not the entire religion, it pointed out.
"The petitioners herein have sought to give a colour to the exercise in question which is completely baseless. The timing of the decision, etc, are immaterial without the petitioners clearly
demonstrating that the reservation on the basis of religion is constitutional and permissible," it said.
The state government also said that its March 27 order was passed following the High Court's order on March 23.
The initial inclusion of Muslim community into the category of Other Backward Classes in 1979 was contrary to the recommendations of the first backward class commission headed by L G Havanur. The said inclusion has thereafter been continued subsequently primarily on the ground of economic backwardness. It is pertinent to state that the constitutional scheme at that stage did not contemplate reservations to economically weaker sections, it said.