The Supreme Court on Monday sought detailed information on the extent of backwardness among Muslim communities while hearing a public interest litigation seeking reservation in jobs and education for Pasmanda Muslims within the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi questioned whether Pasmanda Muslims alone could be treated as the backward segment among Muslims and asked the petitioner to place statistical material on record.
During the hearing, the bench asked senior advocate Anjana Prakash, appearing for petitioner Mohd Waseem Saifi, to clarify the status of other backward Muslim groups.
The court observed that OBC classification involves both social and economic factors and cannot be examined in isolation for a single subgroup. It also asked whether the plea had undertaken any comprehensive exercise to determine how many Muslims fall within backward categories.
The CJI remarked that the court would have to examine whether Pasmandas are the only statistically backward class and expressed concern that granting benefits exclusively to one group could affect other economically and socially disadvantaged Muslims.
The PIL seeks a 10 per cent reservation for Pasmanda Muslims by sub-categorising the OBC quota in terms of the Ranganath Misra Commission report.
At the outset, the petitioner requested that the matter be tagged with another pending case concerning the validity of 4 per cent reservation for Muslims in Andhra Pradesh under the socially and educationally backward classes category.
Counsel submitted that Pasmanda Muslims are economically and socially disadvantaged and therefore entitled to reservation benefits within the OBC framework.
The court was informed that a Constitution Bench is currently examining the Andhra Pradesh government’s appeal against a 2005 High Court judgment which struck down the Andhra Pradesh law providing reservation for Muslims in educational institutions and public employment.
Senior advocate Prakash sought time to file a note responding to the court’s queries. Accepting the request, the bench directed that the matter be listed after four weeks.
