In the Matter of L Ghulam Rasool vs State of Karnataka To remove the 4% reservation for Muslims under the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category in the State before the State’s assembly elections, the State of Karnataka argued before the Supreme Court that religious discrimination is not permitted.
What group should be considered the underclass, and what advantages should be provided for them?
CONTENTION FROM THE PARTIES
The Karnataka government modestly stated that the decision’s timing is “immaterial” because religiously-based reservations are against the law. It was further argued that even throughout the country, with the exception of Kerala, there is no State that provides reservations for the Muslim community as a whole. Merely because reservations have been provided in the past on the basis of religion does not mean that they should continue in perpetuity, especially when they are based on an unconstitutional principle.
In conclusion, it was noted that numerous Muslim communities were represented in the SEBC, as is still the case in Karnataka. The fact that this is the case alone demonstrates that, until recently, only Kerala and the State of Karnataka practised exclusively based religious reservations in the nation.
It was also noted that the government had relied on an intermediate report rather than a final report to make its decision, according to a bench of Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna.