The Supreme Court has stated that it disapproves of political statements being made in connection with a case that is still pending involving the removal of a 4% Muslim reservation in Karnataka. The court has emphasised the significance of upholding sanctity when there is a court order, adding that statements in public regarding things that are still under consideration should be avoided. The case has been postponed until July by the court, who also ordered that the interim orders made at the previous hearing be followed until further rulings.
Prior to the May 10 Karnataka polls, the petitioners took issue with a recent comment made by the home minister, Amit Shah, on the subject. Why should such statements be made when the case is still pending, the court questioned. The government’s Solicitor General Tushar Mehta claimed that it is entirely justified for someone to express opposition to religion-based reservations. The court made it clear that it wants discipline to be upheld and that any other statements made in a public setting are entirely different.
The state government of Karnataka had asked for extra time to submit its response, and the court had previously decided that the previous policy providing Muslims a 4% reservation would remain in place until May 9, the day before voting for assembly elections. On April 26, the Karnataka government notified the court that it had made a conscious choice to stop practising religious discrimination since it is unconstitutional and that as a result, the 4% quota for the Muslim minority had been eliminated. The state government had responded to a number of petitions that were challenging its two orders from March 27 that eliminated the 4% quota for Muslims in the Other Backward Castes category and gave Vokkaligas and Lingayats benefits of an increased quota when applying for and being appointed to government jobs.
Political comments on cases that are still pending have been explicitly forbidden by the Supreme Court, and rules must be upheld. The matter has been postponed until July, and it was ordered that the interim orders made at the previous hearing be followed until further instructions. The court has made clear that it want to preserve the honour of court orders and has questioned why such statements should be made while the case is still pending.