<p>The Karnataka government on Tuesday assured the Supreme Court that it would not implement further for a week its decision to scrap 4 per cent Muslim quota in OBC category in job and education. </p>.<p>Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the state government, submitted before a bench of Justices K M Joseph and B V Nagarathna that the state government would require more time to file its affidavit, prompting the court to defer the hearing till April 25. </p>.<p>The state government had earlier sought time till Monday to file its response to the challenge of its decision.</p>.<p><strong>Also Read | <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/will-not-go-into-personal-laws-says-sc-while-hearing-pleas-for-legal-validation-for-same-sex-marriages-1210779.html" target="_blank">Will not go into personal laws, says SC while hearing pleas for legal validation for same-sex marriages</a></strong><br /> </p>.<p>On April 13, the state government had given an assurance that it won't undertake any admission to educational institutions or make appointment on jobs in terms of its March 27 order.</p>.<p>Taking up a batch of petitions filed by L Ghulam Rasool and others, the bench had said the decision was prima facie based on fallacious assumption and was vitiated as it was based on interim report of a Commission. </p>.<p>"A large number of people were denied the benefit of reservation by a stroke of a single decision," the court noted, adding Muslims had long been enjoying status of OBC in the state.</p>.<p>“We're just saying that prima facie, the order you have passed appears to suggest that the foundation of your decision-making process is shaky and flawed," the bench had then said. </p>.<p>The petitioners had claimed that Muslims community has been treated as socially and educationally backward in Karnataka since 1921 and there was no empirical data available to show that now they are socially and educationally advanced.</p>.<p>They also 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 Muslim community in the EWS list is unlawful. </p>
<p>The Karnataka government on Tuesday assured the Supreme Court that it would not implement further for a week its decision to scrap 4 per cent Muslim quota in OBC category in job and education. </p>.<p>Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the state government, submitted before a bench of Justices K M Joseph and B V Nagarathna that the state government would require more time to file its affidavit, prompting the court to defer the hearing till April 25. </p>.<p>The state government had earlier sought time till Monday to file its response to the challenge of its decision.</p>.<p><strong>Also Read | <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/will-not-go-into-personal-laws-says-sc-while-hearing-pleas-for-legal-validation-for-same-sex-marriages-1210779.html" target="_blank">Will not go into personal laws, says SC while hearing pleas for legal validation for same-sex marriages</a></strong><br /> </p>.<p>On April 13, the state government had given an assurance that it won't undertake any admission to educational institutions or make appointment on jobs in terms of its March 27 order.</p>.<p>Taking up a batch of petitions filed by L Ghulam Rasool and others, the bench had said the decision was prima facie based on fallacious assumption and was vitiated as it was based on interim report of a Commission. </p>.<p>"A large number of people were denied the benefit of reservation by a stroke of a single decision," the court noted, adding Muslims had long been enjoying status of OBC in the state.</p>.<p>“We're just saying that prima facie, the order you have passed appears to suggest that the foundation of your decision-making process is shaky and flawed," the bench had then said. </p>.<p>The petitioners had claimed that Muslims community has been treated as socially and educationally backward in Karnataka since 1921 and there was no empirical data available to show that now they are socially and educationally advanced.</p>.<p>They also 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 Muslim community in the EWS list is unlawful. </p>
