E-Paper
Public figures shouldn’t make political statements on issues pending before court, says SC
The court’s observations came after it was told that home minister Amit Shah had spoken about the withdrawal of a 4% other backward classes (OBC) quota for Muslims in Karnataka
New Delhi Public representatives should not make political statements about an issue pending before the court, and should maintain the dignity of judicial proceedings, the Supreme Court observed on Tuesday in relation with comments made on the campaign trail in Karnataka.
The court’s observations came after it was told that home minister Amit Shah had spoken about the withdrawal of a 4% other backward classes (OBC) quota for Muslims in Karnataka. Even though it did not take any names, nor opt to pursue the verbal complaint against the home minister, a bench led by justice KM Joseph stressed that it does not want the issue of reservation for Muslims in Karnataka “being politicised” at a time when the apex court is seized of the matter.
“We are all pained by this...if something is pending before any court, no statement should be made, especially by the public representatives. Dignity should be maintained when matters are pending before the Supreme Court,” observed a bench that also included justices BV Nagarathna and Ahsanuddin Amanullah.
“In response to a court order, no statement should not be made...We don’t want reservation being politicised, especially when it is pending before this court...Public statements should not be made when matters are pending before this court,” added the bench.
The bench was hearing a bunch of petitions against the March 27 government order (GO) of the Basavaraj Bommai-led BJP government that did away with the 4% OBC quota for Muslims and distributed it equally to Veerashaiva-Lingayats and Vokkaligas. The Karnataka government’s decision was widely seen as a move aimed at pleasing the two dominant backward classes ahead of the state elections in May. Karnataka goes to polls on Wednesday, and the results will be declared on May 13.
Following a Cabinet meeting on March 24, Bommai announced the scrapping of the quota, saying: “There is no provision under the Constitution for reservation to religious minorities … It was struck down by the court in Andhra Pradesh. Even Dr BR Ambedkar had said that reservation was for castes.”
On Tuesday, when the Karnataka reservation matter came up, solicitor general Tushar Mehta, representing the state, requested for adjourning the proceedings since he was in the midst of a constitution bench hearing on the same-sex marriage before another bench. He said that the court could extend his April 25 undertaking that the state government will not implement the impugned GO scrapping reservation for the Muslim community and that the earlier regime will be in place until further orders of the bench.
During the hearing on Tuesday, senior counsel Dushyant Dave, representing a petitioner who has challenged the state’s decision, alluded to Shah’s alleged statements on the issue at election rallies. “Every day, none other than the home minister Mr Amit Shah makes a statement that reservation has been withdrawn. This is hurting us. It amounts to contempt of court,” he contended.
Responding, justice Nagarathna remarked: “If what you are saying is true, we wonder that if the matter is pending at no less than the Supreme Court, why should anyone make a statement?”
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, representing the state government, said that not only Dave’s claims were unverified, but it was also not known as to in what context and how the alleged statements were made. “If someone says that reservation cannot be on the basis of religion, it has nothing to do with the pending matter here. We do not know the context etc,” he added.
But the bench replied: “We hope you understand what we are trying to tell you. In response to any court order, statements should not be made....you as a solicitor general, appearing in this matter, can make a statement that reservation should not be on the basis of religion but it is not the same thing if someone says publicly it from a podium...It’s not open for anyone else to say this from a podium.”
While Dave read out the statements allegedly made by Shah on his mobile phone, the SG said that the court cannot take a judicial note of something argued across the bar by a lawyer without there being an application in this regard.
The bench said that it has already expressed its mind. “What we are saying is that if we go back to 1970, when a West Bengal chief minister made a statement regarding a matter pending before the court, and he was hauled up for contempt...We have already expressed our sentiment. We have nothing to do with politics. We don’t want this to be politicised,” it remarked.
The court proceeded to adjourn the case to July 25, when the matter will be heard by a new bench since justice KM Joseph, who heads this bench, will retire on June 16.
