Supreme Court objects to Amit Shah, others making public statements on Karnataka Muslim quota when matter is sub-judice

The Supreme Court on Tuesday took objection to Union Home Minister Amit Shah and other public functionaries making statements about scrapping of the 4 percent reservation for Muslims in Karnataka, since the matter is sub-judice before the apex court [L Ghulam Rasool vs State of Karnataka]..A bench of Justices KM Joseph, BV Nagarathna and Ahsanuddin Amanullah remarked that public functionaries should exercise caution in their speeches, and not politicise issues that are under consideration by the Court.The remark was made after Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for the petitioners challenging the decision to scrap the quota, said,"Every day the (Union) Home Minister says we have scrapped. Mr Mehta represents the same party, it is contempt of Court."Justice Nagarathna then remarked,"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.".As per a State government order, the Muslim community will be now eligible for reservation only under the 10 percent Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) category. The earlier 4 percent would be distributed equally among the Veerashaiva-Lingayats and Vokkaligas.The Court had, last month, questioned the rationale behind the same. It had orally observed that the government had relied on an interim report rather than a final report to come to its decision.The bench, however, did not issue any stay on decision after Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Karnataka government, assured the Court that no appointments or admissions will be made pursuant to the government order in question till the next date of hearing..The Karnataka government in its counter-affidavit filed in the matter stressed that reservation on the basis of religion is not permissible. The timing of the decision (close to the assembly elections voting day) is, thus, "immaterial", it had added. .Hearing todayThe SG at the outset sought an adjournment in the matter today on account of the fact that he and Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi (appearing for an intervenor) would be engaged before the Constitution bench hearing the same-sex marriage case. Dave opposed the same and also said the interim order should be continued until further orders instead of the next date of hearing."I can see why they do not want to take it up." On the accusations of the Home Minister's alleged remarks, the SG said,"I cannot respond to political [allegations] ... I cannot shout like my learned friend (Dave)."Dave said he was ready to place the concerned statements on record, and added that the SG is already aware of the remarks.The SG at this point said that as an officer of the Court, any religion-based reservation is unconstitutional. "This was not religion based," Dave shot back. "Lordships will have to control (Dave). Cannot let this become a fish market. So far no judge has controlled him, that is the problem. Some judge will have to," the SG said. Justice Joseph then remarked,"We cannot permit politicisation like this. When we are ready to hear, we were prepared to hear."The Court then listed the matter for hearing on July 25, after the SG assured the Court that the earlier reservation regime would prevail for now. Dave said it was obvious why they wanted to delay the hearing. "Some sanity must prevail. [This is] Complete politicising. There is no such statement to my knowledge. But in manifesto one is entitled. Even I cannot be instructed as to how to argue in a vitiated atmosphere," the SG said.As the hearing drew to a close said, Justice Joseph said,"Public statements on this [issue] should not be made.".The bench also refused to entertain a prayer pressed by Senior Advocate Prof Raviverma Kumar, appearing for the Central Muslim Association (one of the petitioners), to restrict the media from publishing such speeches.