On Tuesday, May 9, the Supreme Court refused to entertain the plea made by the Central Muslim Association to restrain the press from publishing speeches made by public functionaries on subjects that are sub-judice or before Court.
The bench of Justice KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna was hearing a plea challenging the Karnataka Government’s decision to scrap the 4% reservation for Muslims in government jobs and educational institutions and distribute it equally to Vokkaligas and Lingayats in the state.
The Central Muslim Association’s appeal was made in response to statements made by Home Minister Amit Shah that the incumbent BJP government in Karnataka, as promised, has revoked the reservation for Muslims in the state.
In multiple interviews with local television channels in Karnataka and during poll campaigns, HM Amit Shah had said there was no provision for reservation on the basis of religion in the Constitution, and the 4% quota for Muslims was completely unconstitutional. The BJP Government in the State scrapped the reservation to uphold constitutional provisions, Shah argued.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also opposed the said prayer made by Central Muslim Association contending that media can never be censured in this manner.
The remark from the Bench came after senior counsel Dushyant Dave, who was representing petitioner Ghulam Rasool, challenging the decision to scrap quota, highlighted HM Amit Shah’s remarks and stated it amounted to contempt of court.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta took strong objection to the submission, saying the Court had not been “told about the context, content or anything”.
SG Tushar Mehta said that it was fully justified that HM Amit Shah is principally against religion-based reservations. He declared unequivocally that everyone has the right to express themselves on significant issues.
Mehta further stated before the court that any religious reservation is unconstitutional.
He stressed that if any Executive authority had interfered with citizens’ rights to speak what the Home Minister allegedly said, this Court would undoubtedly act and preserve his free speech rights.
When another lawyer present in the court informed the bench that the Bharatiya Janata Party had stated in its Election Manifesto that if elected, the party will repeal the 4% Muslim reservation, the Solicitor General retorted sharply saying that there is nothing wrong with such manifestos, and that every political party should state in their manifestos that they will eradicate religion-based reservations.
The SC bench, however, observed that sub judice cases should not be ‘politicised.’
“Why should such statements be made by anyone when the matter is sub judice?” a Bench of Justices K. M. Joseph, B. V. Nagarathna and Ahsanuddin Amanullah asked taking objection to HM Amit Shah’s remarks.
The SC bench observed that public functionaries should exercise restraint in their speeches, and not politicise issues that are under consideration by the Court.
