Muslim leaders slam Karnataka govt for scrapping reservation, to challenge move in court
Bengaluru, Mar 25: The Karnataka BJP government's decision to remove Muslims from the 2B category of Other Backward Classes, which gave them four per cent reservation, has come under fire from leaders of the Muslim community who say they will challenge the move in court.
The Karnataka Cabinet, which met on Friday, had also decided to split this quantum of four per cent equally between Vokkaligas and Veerashaiva-Lingayats at two per cent each in jobs and admissions in educational institutions.
The move, which comes ahead of the Assembly elections that are due by May, was welcomed by the two politically influential communities.
The government's decision has left Muslims to compete with the general category for the 10 per cent reservation meant for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), which is decided based on family income.
Muslim leaders called it a "grave injustice meted out to them".
The Karnataka Cabinet also made recommendations to the Union government regarding internal reservation for Scheduled Castes: six per cent for SC (Left), 5.5 per cent SC (Right), 4.5 per cent to "Touchables" and one per cent to others (total 17 per cent).
But Dalit leaders are unimpressed with the internal reservation, and said it meant nothing until the 17 per cent for the SCs passed by the Karnataka Legislature got Constitutional validity.
A Muslim leader alleged that the community's rights had been snatched away.
Some top Muslim religious leaders of Karnataka on Saturday held a meeting where they denounced the move and vowed to fight it out legally. They also called it a political move by the BJP government to win the upcoming Assembly election.
"Today, Muslims are below the SC and ST in terms of education. You can make out from the atrocities being perpetrated against the Muslims," Maulavi Maqsood Imran of Jamia Masjid and a member of the Ulema Council told PTI, adding, "We will not hit the street or create ruckus on the road. We will fight for our rights legally."
He said there was no objection to Vokkaligas and Lingayats getting additional reservation but it should not happen by taking away someone else's rights.
"We want to appeal to the Vokkaliga and Lingayat seers whether they would like to take those rights which were snatched from others and given to them. We want them to build pressure on the government to get their due share of reservation," he said.
According to him, it was possible to enhance the reservation for Vokkaligas and Lingayats without taking it away from Muslims.
In the meeting at the Khadaria Masjid on Millers Road, Muslim religious leaders also consulted lawyers on taking forward the fight legally.
Meanwhile, Dalit Sangharsh Samiti (Ambedkar Vada) leader Mavalli Shankar said the internal reservation for the SCs would not stand court scrutiny.
"Till the time the 17 per cent reservation gets constitutional validity as was done for Economically Weaker Sections, the internal reservation for the SC (Left), SC (Right), SC (Touchables) and other SCs has no meaning," Shankar told PTI.
A senior Dalit officer too expressed his unhappiness over the internal reservation saying it was just an eyewash because there was no constitutional validity to the 17 per cent reservation proposed for the SCs by the State government.
After the Karnataka government decided to increase the reservation for Vokkaligas in 2C category from four per cent to six per cent and Lingayats in 2D category from five per cent to seven per cent, Basava Jaya Mrutyunjaya Swamiji of Panchamasali Peeth ended his two-year old agitation.
He, however, said he had only "halted" the agitation till the elections are over and would renew his demands until they are met completely.
According to the Swamiji, the demand was for 15 per cent reservation for Lingayats.
Sri Nirmalanandanatha Swamiji, a key religious leader of the Vokkaliga community, expressed his happiness over the two per cent increase in reservation for the Vokkaligas.
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.
SC dismisses pleas seeking review of 2023 verdict declining legal sanction to same-sex marriage
New Delhi, Jan 9: The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a batch of pleas seeking to review its October 2023 verdict declining legal sanction to same-sex marriage.
A five-judge bench of Justices B R Gavai, Surya Kant, B V Nagarathna, P S Narasimha and Dipankar Datta took up about 13 petitions related to the matter in chambers and dismissed them.
"We do not find any error apparent on the face of the record. We further find that the view expressed in both the judgements is in accordance with law and as such, no interference is warranted. Accordingly, the review petitions are dismissed," the bench said.
It said the judges have carefully gone through the judgements delivered by Justice (since retired) S Ravindra Bhat speaking for himself and for Justice (since retired) Hima Kohli as well as the concurring opinion expressed by Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, constituting the majority view.
The bench also rejected a prayer made in the review petitions for hearing in an open court.
According to practice, the review pleas are considered in chambers by the judges.
The new bench was constituted after Justice Sanjiv Khanna, the present CJI, recused from hearing the review petitions on July 10, 2024.
Notably, Justice P S Narasimha is the only member of the original Constitution bench comprising five judges which delivered the verdict, as former CJI D Y Chandrachud and Justices S K Kaul, Ravindra Bhat and Hima Kohli have retired.
A five-judge Constitution bench led by then CJI Chandrachud on October 17, 2024, refused to accord legal backing to same-sex marriages and held there was "no unqualified right" to marriage with the exception of those recognised by law.
The apex court, however, made a strong pitch for the rights of LGBTQIA++ persons so that they didn't face discrimination in accessing goods and services available to others, safe houses known as "garima greh" in all districts for shelter to members of the community facing harassment and violence, and dedicated hotlines in case of trouble.
In its judgement, the bench held transpersons in heterosexual relationships had the freedom and entitlement to marry under the existing statutory provisions.
It said an entitlement to legal recognition of the right to union, akin to marriage or civil union, or conferring legal status to the relationship could be only done through an "enacted law".
The five-judge Constitution bench delivered four separate verdicts on a batch of 21 petitions seeking legal sanction for same-sex marriages.
All five judges were unanimous in refusing the legal recognition to same-sex marriage under the Special Marriage Act and observed it was within Parliament's ambit to change the law for validating such a union.
While former CJI Chandrachud wrote a separate 247-page verdict, Justice Kaul penned a 17-page judgement where he broadly agreed with the former's views.
Justice Bhat, who authored an 89-page judgement for himself and Justice Kohli, disagreed with certain conclusions arrived at by the former CJI, including on applicability of adoption rules for such couples.
Justice Narasimha in his 13-page verdict was in complete agreement with the reasoning and conclusion of Justice Bhat.
The judges were unanimous in holding that queerness was a natural phenomenon and not an "urban or elite" notion.
In his judgement, the former CJI recorded Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's assurance of forming a committee chaired by the cabinet secretary to define and elucidate the scope of entitlements of such couples in a union.
The LGBTQIA++ rights activists, who won a major legal battle in 2018 in the Supreme Court, which decriminalised consensual gay sex, moved the apex court seeking validation of same-sex marriages and consequential reliefs such as rights to adoption, enrolment as parents in schools, opening of bank accounts and availing succession and insurance benefits.
Some of the petitioners sought the apex court to use its plenary power besides the "prestige and moral authority" to push the society to acknowledge such a union and ensure LGBTQIA++ persons led a "dignified" life like heterosexuals.
