Font size:
Print
President in Bold Political Move
Karnataka Governor sends bill on 4% Muslim quota to President
Context: The recent decision by the Karnataka Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot to reserve the 4% Muslim quota Bill for Presidential assent has sparked a constitutional, legal, and political debate.
More in News
Governor’s Constitutional Concerns
Governor Gehlot invoked Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution:
- Article 200: Grants Governor discretion to assent, withhold, or reserve a Bill for the President’s consideration.
- Article 201: When a Bill is reserved, it becomes law only upon Presidential assent.
Governor’s Arguments:
- No provision in the Constitution permits religion-based reservation.
- The Bill potentially violates
- Article 14: Right to Equality before Law.
- Article 15: Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, caste, sex, etc.
- Article 16: Equal opportunity in public employment.
- Cited Supreme Court Judgments:
- Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India (2003): Affirmative action must be based on social and educational backwardness, not religion.
- SC has consistently upheld that reservations must be based on socio-economic criteria rather than religious identity.
- The Bill, passed by the state legislature in March 2025, seeks to amend the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements (Amendment) Bill, 2025, to grant 4% reservation to Muslims in government contracts under Backward Classes Category II-B.
- The move has raised questions over the permissibility of religion-based reservations, the role of the Governor, and the limits of affirmative action under the Constitution.
Key Provisions of the Bill
- Proposes 4% reservation for Muslims in public procurement contracts.
- Muslims are included under Backward Class Category II-B.
- It forms part of the larger 24% reservation policy in civil contracts originally introduced during the first tenure of former CM Siddaramaiah.
- The 2025 amendment extends the scope to include Backward Classes alongside Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
Legal and Constitutional Debates
- Is the Bill Religion-Based?
- While the Bill targets Muslims, the state government justifies it under OBC sub-categorisation, arguing that:
- Groups like Momin, Julaha, etc., are already listed in the Central OBC list.
- The reservation is not for all Muslims, but for certain backward Muslim groups.
- While the Bill targets Muslims, the state government justifies it under OBC sub-categorisation, arguing that:
- Supreme Court View on Religious Quotas
Role of the Governor and Recent Judicial Developments
-
- The Governor’s discretion under Articles 200-201 is currently under intense scrutiny.
- Relevant Developments:
-
- Supreme Court (2024) issued guidelines for Governors:
- One-month deadline to act on Bills.
- If reserved without the advice of the Council of Ministers, a three-month timeline applies.
- If returned Bills are re-passed by the Assembly, the Governor must assent within a month.
- Criticised Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi for withholding assent to 10 bills over three years.
- Supreme Court (2024) issued guidelines for Governors:
- Gehlot’s Action:
-
- Used his discretionary power citing constitutional ambiguity.
- Aimed to prevent future legal complications.
- The Indra Sawhney judgment (1992) allowed OBC reservations based on social and educational backwardness, which may incidentally include religious minorities.
- However, it disallowed blanket religion-based quotas.
- Conflict with Constitutional Morality
- The Constitution enshrines secularism, non-discrimination, and equality as part of basic structure.
- Blanket reservations based solely on religion may undermine this.
Larger Implications
- Constitutional Clarity on Religious Affirmative Action: Need for judicial clarity on whether socio-economically backward religious groups can receive targeted benefits under OBC quotas.
- Federal Tensions: Reflects centre-state friction in policy domains like affirmative action.
- Need for Data-Driven Policy: Reservation policies should be backed by empirical data on socio-economic backwardness, not religion or political expediency.
- Role of Governor as Constitutional Gatekeeper: Sparks debate on whether the Governor’s role is being used for political ends or legal prudence.
Subscribe to our Youtube Channel for more Valuable Content – TheStudyias
Download the App to Subscribe to our Courses – Thestudyias
The Source’s Authority and Ownership of the Article is Claimed By THE STUDY IAS BY MANIKANT SINGH
