New Delhi, May 9.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday frowned on political statements being made on the Muslim reservation issue in the Karnataka election campaign trail when it was still sub-judice before the top court and stayed the state’s hand on taking any further action for now on this.
The bench was alluding to remarks made by Home Minister Amit Shah when its attention was drawn to the speeches.
The bench had earlier restrained the incumbent BJP government in the state from scrapping the 4 per cent quota for the religious minority and dividing it up between the politically influential Vokkalinga and Lingayat communities.
The quota was crucial for the ruling party which is facing a huge anti-incumbency factor. The top court remarks and an order staying the state’s hands on scrapping the religion-based quotas would work against the BJP.
The Lingayats have had many influential BJP leaders such as Yeddyurappa. On the other hand, the Vokkalingas have been represented by the likes of former PM H.D. Devegowda.
These two communities have 14 and 11 per cent share in the population respectively whereas the Muslims amount to 12.91 per cent.
The BJP government while scrapping the Muslim quota had said that the Muslims could avail of quotas under the 10 per cent EWS (economically weaker section) quotas.
This has been challenged in the top court and the top court had imposed a stay on the state move to dismantle minority quotas.
Shah has openly opposed this religion-based quota in his campaign speeches and argued that the state government had realised its mistake and was hence calling it off.
The petitioners in the case, represented by senior advocate Dushyant Dave, drew the court’s attention to the statements and demanded action against him for contempt of court.
The bench comprising Justices K.M. Joseph, B.V. Nagarathna and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, frowned on the comments made on a sub-judice issue. Sanctity of court orders must be maintained, it said.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta who was in court said he was unaware of any such statement by any political functionary but said that there was nothing wrong with such a statement being made in a party manifesto or by anyone else.
That is free speech, he claimed. The bench eventually adjourned the case for further hearing in July at the insistence of the Solicitor General who sought an adjournment on the ground that he was busy in arguments in the same sex marriage case.
