1. Violation of Constitutional Principles
The Indian Constitution prohibits reservations based on religion.
The Supreme Court has ruled multiple times that reservations should be based on social and economic backwardness, not religion.
If this bill is allowed, it could set a dangerous precedent where reservations may be extended to specific religious groups rather than backward communities.
2. Threat to Social Harmony
The bill has already triggered protests and political polarization.
The opposition (BJP and JD(S)) claims it will divide communities and increase religious tensions.
Caste- and community-based quotas have historically been a point of conflict, and adding a religious-based quota may worsen communal relations.
3. Risk of Legal Challenges & Rollback
Courts have previously struck down religion-based reservations (e.g., the Andhra Pradesh High Court struck down a Muslim quota in 2005).
If the Supreme Court overturns this bill, it could create legal instability and waste government resources spent on implementing it.
4. Unfairness to Other Backward Communities
The existing reservation categories (SC/ST/OBC) were based on comprehensive studies of backwardness.
Giving a religion-specific quota means other communities with similar socio-economic conditions may be overlooked.
This could lead to resentment among other OBC groups who feel their rights are being diluted.
5. Encouraging Vote Bank Politics
Many argue that this bill is an attempt by Congress to appease Muslim voters ahead of future elections.
Using reservations for political gain instead of genuine social justice can set a dangerous precedent for future governments.
Final Verdict
While the intention of uplifting backward communities is valid, implementing reservations solely based on religion is legally questionable, socially divisive, and politically dangerous. If allowed, it could open the floodgates for other religion-based reservations, ultimately weakening India's secular and constitutional framework.
Post a Comment