No reservations

Karnataka has done away with 4% reservation for Muslims and justified its move with questionable reasoning

The Karnataka government has done away with reservation for Muslims in the state in a baffling and questionable manner. Under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990, 4% of seats in educational institutions and jobs in government are reserved for Muslims who are classified under Category 2B among backward classes. The 4% reservation for Muslims has been re-allocated to the two new categories, 2C and 2D, respectively.

Two reasons have been offered by the government: one, that a reservation on the basis of religion might be subject to a legal challenge, and two, that this move will benefit Muslims since they will now be eligible for 10% reservations in the economically weaker sections (EWS) category. One distinction must be made here: not all Muslims fall within Category 2B, since some of the most backward Muslim castes are included in Category 1.

Legally, the argument of the state government about the removal of reservations for Muslims does not make sense. Even in Karnataka, Muslims are not the only religious minority community availing itself of the benefits of reservations. Christians and Jains get them under Category 2D. Even so, these reservations have not been granted on the basis of religion but rather the social and economic backwardness of the communities in question.

Read | Karnataka election: Shettar defies BJP order, says 'will contest' in polls

The Karnataka government relies on the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s judgements, which struck down the state government’s reservation policy for Muslims in that state on three different occasions. Even while striking down these reservations, what is important to note is that the AP HC in B Archana Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2005) has held categorically that “There is no prohibition to declare Muslims, as a community, socially and educationally backward for the purposes of Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution of India, provided they satisfy the test of social backwardness.”

In that judgement, they found that Muslims in AP were not socially backward and therefore not entitled to reservations. This principle was applied in the subsequent case of T Murlidhar Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2010), where the court again struck down Muslim reservations in Andhra Pradesh on the ground that the manner of showing Muslims socially and educationally backward was flawed and not based on correct material. The court says nowhere that Muslims cannot per se be granted reservations.

However, the issue of whether Muslims in Andhra Pradesh can get the benefit of reservations on the basis of religion alone is currently pending in the Supreme Court.

In Karnataka, however, reservations for Muslims have always been given to the community based on data that shows their social and economic backwardness. In that sense, the state government’s justification for removing Muslim reservations is based on an incomplete reading of the law.

In Karnataka, reservation for Muslims is more than a 100 years old, dating back to the Miller Report implemented by the Mysore Princely State in 1918. Since then, almost without a pause, Muslims have been considered a socially, economically, and educationally backward community. This is not just a perception but based on numerous reports prepared over the years, such as those of the Nagan Gowda Committee in 1961, the Venkataswamy Commission in 1986, and the O Chinnappa Reddy Commission in 1990, all of which acknowledged the social, economic, and educational backwardness of Muslims. As the Sachar Committee (2005) notes with approval, Karnataka was one of the few states in India where Muslims were relatively better off compared to other states thanks to the progressive policies of reservations for Muslims as a backward class, which improved their educational and employment status. However, the report noted that they still suffered higher poverty rates than Hindu OBCs in the state.

Unless Karnataka has concrete data that shows that Muslims are not socially and economically backward, depriving them of reservations would be unconstitutional. The SC’s judgement in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1994) states that reservations for socially and educationally backward classes can only be given if there is adequate data to show social and educational backwardness on well-established parameters. It follows that reducing reservations should also be based on hard data.
The state government has provided no data to support its claim that Muslims are no longer backward, and there is therefore no factual or legal basis to deprive Muslims of reservations. This move is therefore a clear violation of Article 14.

The Karnataka State Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1993, also mandates that when the state government is revising the lists of backward classes eligible for reservation in the state, it has to take the advice of the Backward Classes Commission. In removing reservations for Muslims, the state government has not referred to or pointed to any report of the commission that says that Muslims are not eligible for such reservations. Furthermore, Section 10 of the same law makes the advice of the Commission binding. Therefore, legally, the state government could not have removed Muslims from the list of backward classes eligible for reservation without the specific advice of the Backward Classes Commission.

Saying that denying Muslims backward-class reservations will help Muslims obtain reservations under the EWS category is also bizarre. Three years after the 103rd Constitution Amendment was notified by the Union Government, Karnataka did not implement EWS reservations until one day before elections were announced in 2023. With no implementation of EWS reservation and no data on who might really benefit, it is pure speculation and pious hope that Muslims would benefit from the promised 10% quota. Given the existing social and economic backwardness in the community, it is unfair and unjust that they are being forced to compete with socially and economically well-off communities for reservations under the EWS category.

The Karnataka Government’s promise of accommodation for the Muslim community in the EWS category seems, to borrow a phrase from Mahatma Gandhi, “a post-dated cheque on a failing bank.”

(S Japhet is former vice chancellor, Bangalore Central University, and visiting professor, NLSIU. Alok Prasanna Kumar is co-founder, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy)