New Delhi, Mar 24, 2025: Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju on Monday strongly criticized the Congress Party over its stance on Muslim reservation in Karnataka, asserting, “Reservation can be granted based on economic and social parameters, but it cannot be given solely on religious identity or affiliation.”
Rijiju’s statement came in response to Karnataka Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar’s remark on Sunday, where he stated that Congress would “amend the Constitution” to facilitate reservation for Muslims and other backward classes in Karnataka.
“This issue was firmly rejected in 1947 when the Muslim League raised the matter before the Constituent Assembly. Sardar Patel, along with other members, dismissed the idea of religion-based reservation, as they firmly believed that the Indian Constitution should not endorse quotas based on religious grounds. Our Constitution upholds secularism,” Rijiju remarked.
The Parliamentary Affairs Minister also called for an official clarification from the Congress President regarding the party’s stand on granting reservation to Muslims in Karnataka.
“The Congress President must clarify the party’s stance on the floor of Parliament. Are they going to remove the individual holding a constitutional position who made this statement, or will they openly declare that Congress intends to alter the Constitution of India? They cannot have it both ways,” he said while addressing the media.
“This is not a trivial issue,” he emphasized, highlighting that the statement was made not by an ordinary party functionary but by a leader holding an official position. Rijiju termed the matter “highly serious,” asserting that any attempt to modify the Constitution to accommodate religion-based reservation is “unacceptable.”
Earlier, the Karnataka State Cabinet approved an amendment to the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement (KTPP) Act. The amendment aims to grant a four percent reservation in government tenders to minority contractors, a move that has sparked controversy and political debate.
No Comments: