Muslim quota Bill: Karnataka Governor turns Supreme Court order against state govt

Bengaluru: Karnataka Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot has defended his refusal to approve the Congress government’s Bill introducing reservation for Muslims in contracts, for which he relied on the very Supreme Court judgement that Chief Minister Siddaramaiah hoped would mount pressure on Raj Bhavan.

Last week, the state government had asked Gehlot to reconsider his decision on reserving the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements (Amendment) Bill for President Droupadi Murmu’s assent. Gehlot decided to send the Bill to the President last month.

The Bill, passed by the legislature in March, provides Muslims with a 4% reservation in construction works contracts valued up to Rs 1 crore. It also introduces reservation for SC/STs, Muslims, Category-1 and Category-2A in government tenders for the procurement of goods and services up to Rs 1 crore.

The government argued that Gehlot’s decision was “untenable” in the backdrop of last month’s Supreme Court judgement, which declared Tamil Nadu Governor’s move to keep 10 Bills for Presidential assent as “illegal, arbitrary and erroneous”.

Turning the tables on the government, Gehlot quoted para 412 from the Supreme Court judgement, which allows Governors “to ascertain the palpable constitutionality of a bill, which is by way of reserving it for the consideration of the President”. There is no mechanism at the state-level for Governors to refer Bills to constitutional courts for their advice or opinion, the top court held.

“...the Bill in question involves Constitutional legality," Gehlot stated. “Since the matter related to reservation for Muslims is pending before the Supreme Court for adjudication, I deem it fit not to interfere at this juncture, because the issue involves the restrictions imposed by Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution as well as the decisions of various High Courts and Apex Court,” he argued.

Gehlot said he has "sufficient" reasons showing how the Bill "would certainly undermine the spirit of" the Constitution.

"The proposed amendment and the consequences thereof cannot possibly be curtailed or contained by

taking recourse to the constitutional courts of the country since an action taken and the undue benefits already distributed or the exceptional losses to all other citizens of the State cannot be by anyway recuperated or made right," Gehlot stated, adding that he is "constrained to not reconsider" his decision on reserving the Bill for Presidential assent.

Gehlot reiterated his position that the Constitution does not allow religion-based reservation. "Hence, as per the proposed amendment, providing 4% reservation (to Muslims) may be construed as reservation for the community based on religion,” he stated.