Religious Reservation Is Contrary To Secularism And Social Justice: Read Karnataka's Affidavit Before Apex Court

The State of Karnataka has filed a counter affidavit defending its decision to scrap the 4% reservation to Muslims in the State. The Apex Court has already recorded a statement on behalf of the State that no admission to educational institutions or appointments for jobs will be made based on its decision that is impugned before the Court. 

The State has raised some preliminary objections to the maintainability of the writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Firstly, the State says that the Apex Court has been approached without first approaching the High Court. Secondly, the State has submitted that the impugned order was passed after the Karnataka High Court vacated its interim order restraining the State from scrapping the reservation. The State has submitted that the said writ petition is still pending before the High Court and the State's decision is subject to the final outcome of that case.  

The State has cited three reports, viz. L.G. report of Havanur Karnataka Backward Classes Commission of 1975, T. Venkataswamy Backward Classes Commission Report and the report of Justice O. P. Chinnappa Reddy Backward Classes Commission. 

The State has contended that the timing of the decision, etc are immaterial unless the petitioners demonstrate that the reservation on the basis of religion is constitutional and permissible. "Merely because reservations have been provided in the past on the basis of religion, the same is no ground for continuing the same for perpetuity, more so when the same is on the basis of an unconstitutional principle", the affidavit says.  

The State says that the backward classes have been referred to as a “Collection of certain castes” by Dr. Ambedkar and that it is meant for Socially and Educationally backward classes in society who have historically been deprived and discriminated against. "The same cannot be equated with an entire religion", says the affidavit filed through Advocate Shubhranshu Padhi.  

The State says that the Mandal Commission has clearly found that religion could not be the sole basis for reservation. The affidavit says that throughout the country, except the State of Kerala, there is no state that provides for reservation for the Muslim community as a whole. 

"It is humbly submitted that reservation solely on the basis of religion is also contrary to the principles of Social Justice. As stated above, 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", Karnataka says. 

The State has also said that the provision of reservation on the basis of religion would also be contrary to the concept of secularism and that reservation on the basis of a person belonging to a particular religion militates against secularism and is, therefore, unconstitutional.

The affidavit says that the classification of the entire religion as backward is bereft of any rational basis and would be arbitrary and unreasonable and thus violative of the principles of Article 14. "Even otherwise, it would lead to further deprivations of the backward classes/groups within the Muslim community as the forward class/groups within the Muslim religion would be in a position to garner the benefits thereunder", it says.  

The State says that issues raised in the proceedings are pending consideration in several matters arising out of Andhra Pradesh being State of A.P. v. B. Archana Reddy, Civil Appeal No. 7513 of 2005 and connected matters. The State has also argued that the petitioners have failed to plead and prove the basic requirements for passing of an interim order of stay.

Click here to read/download affidavit