Karnataka Increases Muslim Housing Quota, BJP Calls It "Unconstitutional"
In a post on X, Mr Yediyurappa accused the Congress government of turning welfare into vote-bank politics and claimed that the new reservation policy deprives SCs, STs, and OBCs of their rightful opportunities.
"Reservation on the basis of religion is unconstitutional! @INCKarnataka in Karnataka has converted welfare into a marketplace for vote-bank politics. • First, 4% quota in government contracts. • Now, 15% quota in housing schemes. Where does this appeasement end? This is a dangerous attempt to institutionalise communal vote-bank politics. It not only robs SCs, STs, and OBCs of their rightful opportunities, but also sends a disturbing message that merit, backwardness, and constitutional principles are secondary to religious appeasement," he wrote.
He asked the Congress to read the Constitution of India, asserting that reservations are intended for those who are socially and educationally backwards, not based on religious identity.
"I urge Congress to pick up the Constitution they love to wave at public meetings. Had they read it even once, they would know that reservations are based on social and educational backwardness, and not handed out based on "who votes for me." Under the guise of welfare, this government is brazenly pushing religion-based reservation, striking at the very foundation of Dr. BR Ambedkar's Constitution and dragging his vision through the dirt of appeasement politics," he added.
"The Congress government's reckless appeasement will not survive judicial scrutiny, nor escape the judgment of history. Karnataka deserves governance, not divisive experiments with the Constitution," the BJP leader said.
Reservation on the basis of religion is unconstitutional! @INCKarnataka in Karnataka has converted welfare into a marketplace for vote-bank politics.
• First, 4% quota in government contracts.
• Now, 15% quota in housing schemes.
Where does this appeasement end?
This is a… pic.twitter.com/hfV0P63Xef
— Vijayendra Yediyurappa (@BYVijayendra) June 19, 2025
Earlier, Union Minister Pralhad Joshi condemned the move, calling it unconstitutional by referring to the Supreme Court's 'rejection' of religion-based reservation.
Speaking to ANI, Mr Joshi said, "This is against the Constitution. The Supreme Court has also rejected a religion-based reservation. This reduces the quota for OBC, ST, and poor people from the general caste. The Karnataka government is doing the politics of appeasement. I condemn this. We will also approach the court against this."
On Thursday, the Karnataka Cabinet approved an increase in the reservation quota for minority communities under various housing schemes from 10 per cent to 15 per cent.
Karnataka Minister HK Patil stated that this move does not require any new rules to be drafted.
"The reservation for all minority communities will be increased. There are Christians, Jains, Buddhists," the Minister said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Print
an hour ago
- The Print
Congress picks Khurshid to lead party's foreign affairs wing, BJP ex-MP as vice-chair
Brijendra Singh, a former BJP MP and the son of Birender Singh who served as a minister in the first two Modi governments, had joined the Congress in 2024 ahead of the 2024 general elections. He contested the Haryana assembly election but lost by a margin of 32 votes. Khurshid, who served as the minister of external affairs in the UPA-II government, will be assisted by Brijendra Singh and Arathi Krishna as vice-chairpersons of the department which had previously Manish Tewari, Deepender Singh Hooda as members among others. New Delhi: The Congress Wednesday appointed senior leader Salman Khurshid, 72, as the chairperson of the party's Foreign Affairs Department, days after Anand Sharma stepped down from the post citing the need to entrust 'younger leaders' with the charge. Arathi Krishna is considered close to Karnataka's Deputy Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar. Incidentally, Khurshid was among the Congress leaders to be made members of multi-party delegations on Operation Sindoor by the Centre. His name did not figure in the list of four names that the Congress had proposed. What makes his appointment interesting is that Khurshid had irked the Congress leadership by defending the abrogation of Article 370 in Jammu & Kashmir during his visit to Indonesia as part of one of the delegations. He had told a gathering of academia and think tanks in Indonesia that Article 370 of the Constitution had given rise to an impression that J&K was 'separate' from the rest of India. 'But Article 370 was abrogated. It was abrogated, and it was finally put to an end, because so much time has passed. Subsequently, there was an election with 65 percent participation in the election. There's an elected government in Jammu and Kashmir today. And therefore, for people who want to undo everything that has happened, the prosperity that has come to Kashmir is something which is very, very unfortunate, and it will give a setback to anybody,' he had said. While the Congress has never demanded the restoration of Article 370, the party also never hailed the move as one that benefited Jammu and Kashmir. That is why the BJP was quick to seize on Khurshid's remarks in an attempt to corner the Congress. Later, Khurshid, in a post on X, had hit out at his critics, including within the party. 'When on a mission against terrorism, to carry India's message to the world, it is distressing that people at home are calculating political allegiances… is it so difficult to be patriotic?' he had posted. Sharma, on the other hand, was the Congress leadership's only choice that had made the cut for being part of the delegations formed in the aftermath of Operation Sindoor to argue India's case in various world capitals. While in his resignation letter, Sharma wrote that the department needs to be reconstituted to bring in younger leaders of potential and promise, sources told ThePrint that he was upset over being sidelined and not consulted on foreign policy matters by the Congress leadership. Over the last few years, he has found himself at odds with the party leadership, including Rahul Gandhi, over many issues. Earlier this month, after Rahul, currently the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, remarked that he agreed with US President Donald Trump's assessment that the Indian economy was 'dead', Sharma took a divergent view. 'President Trump has triggered an upheaval and caused unprecedented disruption in the world order by his utterances and actions. His comments on India and its Economy are belittling and unacceptable. India has withstood pressures & threats in the past, & emerged stronger. President Trump is mistaken that India does not have options. As the fourth largest economy India has resilience & inherent strength to engage with the world on principles of equality & mutual respect…' Sharma wrote on X on 4 August. Also Read: Control, fear, and division—Congress hasn't changed even 50 years after Emergency
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Sahibabad market violence: Trader held over remarks against woman
Ghaziabad: The Ghaziabad police have arrested Bijender Yadav, a trader at Sahibabad vegetable market, for allegedly making insulting remarks against a woman, the wife of a government officer, said officials on Wednesday. A spokesperson of the Congress' city unit has said that trader Yadav is not holding any party responsibility as of now. (HT Photos (Video grab)) On August 14, Yadav, along with 100-150 unidentified people, was booked in an FIR registered at the Link Road police station under the BNS sections for insulting the modesty of a woman, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace, criminal intimidation, and threats that cause fear of death, grievous hurt, destruction of property by fire, or other serious offenses. 'Yadav, named in the FIR, was arrested on Tuesday under section 151 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) (to prevent the commission of cognizable offences). The FIR was lodged by the woman. However, even after a lot of persuasion, she or her husband has not come to the police to provide their statements so far. An investigation is underway,' said assistant commissioner of police (Sahibabad circle) Shweta Yadav. The woman alleged in her FIR that Yadav allegedly gave a speech to the Sahibabad vegetable market traders on August 11, and also passed insulting remarks against her and her husband. The incidents later took an ugly turn, and a group of men allegedly opened fire at traders, leaving two men injured. Several purported videos of the speech, firing and violence also went viral on the social media. Later, eight suspects of a group were arrested on August 11 evening for rioting, attempted murder, and violence. Earlier, Yadav, who is also ex-Congress district president, told HT that due to traders' harassment he had made the remarks. A spokesperson of the Congress' city unit said that Yadav is not holding any party responsibility as of now.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Can elected govt be at whims and fancies of Governor, asks CJI
The Supreme Court bench hearing the Presidential reference asked the government Wednesday whether an elected government can be placed at 'the whims and fancies of the Governor' by vesting him/her with the power to withhold a Bill forever. 'But then would we not be giving total powers to the Governor to sit in appeals?… The government elected by majority will be at the whims and fancies of the Governor,' Chief Justice of India B R Gavai asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta who appeared for the Centre. The bench said that to interpret that the Bill 'dies' the first time the Governor withholds it 'would be counterproductive to the power of the Governor and counterproductive to the legislative process'. The five-judge Constitution bench is hearing President Droupadi Murmu's reference on timelines fixed by a two-judge bench for the President and Governors to act on Bills sent by state legislatures. Delving into the contours of the Governor's discretionary powers under Article 200 of the Constitution, Mehta told the bench: 'It is not an asylum for retired politicians but has its own sanctity which was debated in the Constituent Assembly.' He said the Governor, though unelected, represents the President and is not just a 'postman' to mechanically approve Bills. 'A person who is not directly elected is not a lesser person,' he said. Addressing the bench which included Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar, Mehta said the Governor has the option to grant assent to a Bill referred by the state legislature, withhold assent, refer it to the President in case of repugnancy with any Central law or return it to the state legislature for reconsideration. He said withholding is not a temporary act, and that 5-judge and 7-judge benches of the Supreme Court have interpreted it to mean that the Bill 'falls through'. Illustrating this, he said, 'Suppose a border state passes a Bill dealing with our external affairs, that we will permit a particular country's people to enter or not, then he cannot assent, he cannot refer it to President because it's not a repugnancy issue, and he cannot resend it to the House because if it is again passed, he cannot say no to it. So he will have to withhold.' He said the power 'has to be used rarely, sparingly, but that is the way the situation is'. The CJI then asked, 'If he doesn't exercise the option of resending the Bill for reconsideration, he can withhold it for time immemorial?' 'It dies,' Mehta said, reiterating that 'it (the power) is to be used rarely but power is conferred.' He said, 'The very language in which Article 200 is couched, it gives him options.' He said 'neither textually nor contextually, it is possible to conclude that the term withhold will have to be read as a temporary suspension of powers of granting assent till first proviso works out. There is no concept of temporary withholding of any Bill. If the framers of the Constitution wanted to link the term withhold in the main part of Article 200 to read only in the context of first proviso, two things would have been provided: (a) term withhold in the main part would have been qualified with the term subject to first proviso mentioned therein, (b) the first proviso would have mentioned that the Bill so withheld shall be reconsidered by the House, which is not there.' Justice Narasimha said the options must remain open-ended so that the political process has the chance to resolve the deadlock over a Bill. 'The way the political process occurs is not adjudicatory. Even assuming the Governor says I withhold, the political process can knock his doors and he can still open it and say, I will send it back to you, you consider and send it back. But to say… the first time he says, I withhold, the matter comes to an end… It can't be like that. It is counterproductive to the power of the Governor and counterproductive to the legislative process also. It has to be in a situation where it is open-ended,' he said. He was quick to add that the court understood that the Solicitor General was referring to Bills on subjects in the Union List. On the debate over the discretionary powers of the Governor, Justice Narasimha said, 'At that time we did not have impact assessment of a statute … Now, you see the amount of litigation it has thrown up by having provisions of this nature. Perhaps that could tell us whether the vision was right or not. Because the validity or correctness of a thought will come from its performance.' Mehta said he was 'not arguing that the Governor has unlimited discretion'. CJI Gavai said, 'We have some experience as to how some honourable Governors have exercised their discretion leading to so many litigations, but we are not going by that.' Mehta said, 'Indian democracy is a matured democracy. There may be aberrations on an individual level. But by and large, the democracy under this very Constitution has worked very effectively. And I personally experienced it during Covid times, how the Centre-state federal balance envisaged was on display. So it would be really hazardous to assess on the basis of some aberrations.'
