The Supreme Court of India recently expressed its displeasure over public officials making remarks on the scrapping of 4% reservation for Muslims in Karnataka, a southern state in India, despite the matter being sub judice before the Court. Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave, while appearing before the bench hearing the petitions challenging the Karnataka government's decision to scrap the quota, alleged that Union Home Minister Amit Shah made statements that the quota was unconstitutional and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the ruling party in Karnataka, had scrapped it.

Justice B V Nagarathna, one of the judges on the bench, questioned why any person should make such statements when the matter is sub judice before the Supreme Court. Dave contended that Shah's statement amounted to contempt of court since the BJP government in Karnataka had withdrawn the quota, which was upheld by the Court in 2012.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the Centre, objected to Dave's submission and urged the bench not to make any comment without knowing the content of the statement and the context in which it was made. He argued that every individual has the right to take a position on vital issues, and he had also submitted before the Court that any reservation based on religion is unconstitutional.

The bench, comprising Justices K M Joseph and A Amanullah, took note of Mehta's submission but pointed out that someone from a podium in a public place making a statement is entirely different from what the Solicitor General can say in open court. The judges also suggested that the petitioner should move an application to bring on record the content of the statement attributed to Amit Shah.

The Supreme Court's comments came in the backdrop of the upcoming elections in Karnataka, where the BJP is seeking to regain power after losing it in 2018. The BJP had then lost power to the Janata Dal Secular (JDS)-Congress coalition, which provided 4% reservation for Muslims in educational institutions. The Karnataka government's decision to scrap the quota is now being challenged before the Supreme Court.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court's comments came in response to the allegation that the Union Home Minister had made statements on a matter that is sub judice before the Court. The Court expressed its displeasure and urged caution to be exercised while commenting on a matter that is under its consideration.