Karnataka Guv forwards Bill on 4 pc quota to Muslims in govt contracts to President's assent
Bengaluru, Apr 16 (PTI): Karnataka Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot has reserved the Bill pertaining to four per cent reservation to Muslims in government contract for the President's assent, Raj Bhavan sources said on Wednesday.
According to sources, Gehlot marked the Bill as reserved for Presidential assent and sent it to the Karnataka Law and Parliamentary Affairs Department. Now, the state government will send the file to the President to get his nod to the Bill that has created quite a stir in Karnataka.
In his letter to the state government, Gehlot said, "The Constitution of India does not permit reservation based on religion, as it violates the principles of equality (Article 14), non-discrimination (Article 15) and equal opportunity in public employment (Article16)."
"Supreme Court has consistently in various judgments ruled that affirmative action must be based on Social and Educational backwardness, not on religious identity," Gehlot said.
He also pointed out that the Article 15 of the Indian Constitution prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.
"It is clear from Article 200 and 201 that a Bill passed by the State Assembly may become law if the Governor gives his assent to it or if having been reserved by the Governor for consideration of the President, it is assented to by the President," Gehlot said.
He emphasised that there is no provision in the Constitution, which lays down that a Bill which has been assented to by the President would be ineffective as an Act if there was no compelling necessity for the Governor to reserve it for the assent of the President.
It is for the Governor to exercise his discretion and to decide whether he should assent to the Bill or should reserve it for the consideration of the President to avoid any future complication, he noted.
Gehlot said, "In the light of the above, I hereby exercising the powers under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution of India, reserve The Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements (Amendment) Bill, 2025 for the consideration and assent of the President of India."
The Governor cited a recent Supreme Court judgment of Saurabh Chaudri versus Union of India (2003), which emphasised that Articles 15 and 16 prohibit reservations on the basis of religion and any affirmative action must be rather based on the socio-economic factors.
The Bill was passed by both houses of Karnataka Legislature amid protests by the opposition BJP on the last day of the previous Legislative session on March 21.
The protesting BJP legislators climbed on Speaker U T Khader's podium, tore the Bill and threw it on him. For this unruly behaviour, 18 BJP MLAs were suspended for six months.
The BJP charged that the Bill was illegal as there is no provision in the Indian Constitution to give reservation based on religion. It also alleged that the Bill smacks of appeasement politics of the ruling Congress.
The party has made this Bill a key issue during its 'Janaakrosha Yatre' (Public anger march), which is going on across the state.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
High courts upheld only 8 per cent of death sentences; SC confirms none in recent years: Report
New Delhi (PTI): Highlighting that a high acquittal rate of death row convicts by the Supreme Court and high courts demonstrates a pattern of "erroneous or unjustified convictions", a study of 10 years of death penalty data has revealed that the top court did not confirm any death sentences in recent years.
The study by Square Circle Clinic, a criminal laws advocacy group with the NALSAR University of Law in Hyderabad, found that an overwhelming majority of death sentences imposed by trial courts did not withstand scrutiny at higher judicial levels. Acquittals far outnumbered confirmations at both the high courts and Supreme Court levels.
According to the report, the trial courts across India awarded 1,310 death sentences in 822 cases between 2016 and 2025. High courts considered 842 of these sentences in confirmation proceedings but upheld only 70 or 8.31 per cent.
In contrast, 258 death sentences (30.64 per cent) resulted in acquittals. The study noted that the acquittal rate at the high court level was nearly four times the confirmation rate.
Data showed that of the 70 death sentences confirmed by high courts, the Supreme Court decided 38 and did not uphold a single one. The apex court has confirmed no death sentences between 2023 and 2025.
"Wrongful or erroneous or unjustified convictions, then, are not random or freak accidents in the Indian criminal justice system. The data indicates they are a persistent and serious systemic concern," the report said.
Over the last decade, high courts adjudicated 1,085 death sentences in 647 cases, confirming only 106 (9.77 per cent). During this period, 326 persons in 191 cases, were acquitted.
The report attributed low confirmation rates to the appellate judiciary’s concerns regarding failures in due process. "This coincides with increased Supreme Court scrutiny of safeguards at the sentencing stage," the report said.
Of the 153 death sentences decided by the apex court over the last decade, the accused were acquitted in 38 cases. In 2025 alone, high courts overturned death sentences into acquittals in 22 out of 85 cases (over 25 per cent). The same year, Supreme Court acquitted accused persons in more than half of the death penalty cases it decided (10 out of 19), the report said.
The study highlighted that 364 persons who were ultimately acquitted "should not even have been convicted and unjustifiably suffered the trauma of death row". It added that such failures extend beyond adjudication and reflect serious lapses in investigation and prosecution.
The question of remedies for wrongful convictions remains pending before the Supreme Court. In September 2025, three persons acquitted by the apex court filed writ petitions seeking compensation from the state and argued that their wrongful convictions violated their fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
"In 2022, the Supreme Court crystallised a sentencing process in Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh , and mandated all courts to follow those guidelines before imposing or confirming a death sentence," the report read.
In 2025, the apex court held in Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. Union of India that death penalty sentencing hearings form part of the right to a fair trial and stressed that capital punishment can be imposed only after a constitutionally compliant sentencing process.
"However, even at the high courts whether the process mandated under Manoj is being complied with is in doubt,” the report said.
