<p>The Supreme Court on Tuesday objected to a public statement by Union Home Minister Amit Shah over the "politicisation" of the issue of a 4 per cent quota for Muslims in jobs and education in Karnataka at a time when the matter was being heard by it.</p>.<p>"We cannot permit politicisation like this when we are ready to hear the matter," a bench of Justices K M Joseph, B V Nagarathna and Ahsanuddin Amanullah said.</p>.<p>The court's observation came when senior advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for the petitioners, referred to the statement having been made by Union Home Minister Shah.</p>.<p>The minister is reported to have called the Muslim reservation against the Constitution.</p>.<p><strong>Also Read — <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/election/karnataka/amit-shah-defends-karnataka-govt-s-decision-to-scrap-4-reservation-for-muslims-1203705.html" target="_blank">Amit Shah defends Karnataka govt’s decision to scrap 4% reservation for Muslims</a></strong></p>.<p>"When the matter is sub judice and before this court, such statements should not be made," the bench said.</p>.<p>Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Karnataka government, maintained that any religion-based reservation is unconstitutional.</p>.<p>He, however, denied any knowledge of such a statement and stressed that "in the manifesto, one is entitled to".</p>.<p>"Public statements on this should not be made. We have nothing to do with politics," the bench said.</p>.<p>Dave, for his part, said he can put the statement of the minister on record before the court.</p>.<p>The court adjourned the hearing in the matter, arising out of a batch of petitions filed by L Ghulam Rasool and others, to July.</p>.<p>It also took into record a statement by the Solicitor General that no action would be taken on the state government's March 27 decision to scrap the 4 per cent reservation to Muslims.</p>.<p>The petitioners said the identification of the Muslim community as a socially and educationally backward class has been approved by the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney vs Union of India, 1992 (Mandal case).</p>.<p>They also contended that the inclusion of the Muslim community in the EWS list is unlawful. </p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Tuesday objected to a public statement by Union Home Minister Amit Shah over the "politicisation" of the issue of a 4 per cent quota for Muslims in jobs and education in Karnataka at a time when the matter was being heard by it.</p>.<p>"We cannot permit politicisation like this when we are ready to hear the matter," a bench of Justices K M Joseph, B V Nagarathna and Ahsanuddin Amanullah said.</p>.<p>The court's observation came when senior advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for the petitioners, referred to the statement having been made by Union Home Minister Shah.</p>.<p>The minister is reported to have called the Muslim reservation against the Constitution.</p>.<p><strong>Also Read — <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/election/karnataka/amit-shah-defends-karnataka-govt-s-decision-to-scrap-4-reservation-for-muslims-1203705.html" target="_blank">Amit Shah defends Karnataka govt’s decision to scrap 4% reservation for Muslims</a></strong></p>.<p>"When the matter is sub judice and before this court, such statements should not be made," the bench said.</p>.<p>Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Karnataka government, maintained that any religion-based reservation is unconstitutional.</p>.<p>He, however, denied any knowledge of such a statement and stressed that "in the manifesto, one is entitled to".</p>.<p>"Public statements on this should not be made. We have nothing to do with politics," the bench said.</p>.<p>Dave, for his part, said he can put the statement of the minister on record before the court.</p>.<p>The court adjourned the hearing in the matter, arising out of a batch of petitions filed by L Ghulam Rasool and others, to July.</p>.<p>It also took into record a statement by the Solicitor General that no action would be taken on the state government's March 27 decision to scrap the 4 per cent reservation to Muslims.</p>.<p>The petitioners said the identification of the Muslim community as a socially and educationally backward class has been approved by the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney vs Union of India, 1992 (Mandal case).</p>.<p>They also contended that the inclusion of the Muslim community in the EWS list is unlawful. </p>
