The Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed its anguish over the public statements being made on the scrapping of 4 per cent reservation for Muslim OBCs in Karnataka during campaigning for the state assembly elections, noting that the assurance by the state government that it would not undertake any appointments or admissions in the wake of the scrapping of OBC reservation for Muslims belonging to Vokkaliga and Lingayat communities.

A bench comprising Justice KM Joseph, Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah expressed their anguish as senior advocate Dushyant Dave told the court that the Union Home Minister Amit Shah was making public statements relating to the matter during electioneering.

Dave said that these statements were being made even though court has recorded a statement by the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that the Karnataka government would not undertake any appointments or admissions in the wake of the decision to scrap four percent reservation for Muslim OBCs belonging to Vokkaliga and Lingayat communities.

Dave described the statements as “contempt.”

Describing it as “painful”, Justice Nagarathna said that if a matter is pending before the top court or for that matter before any court, no public statements should be made relating to it. It has “pained,” Justice Nagarathna said.

Opposing it, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that before any observation comes from the bench, the “content and context” of the statement made by the Union Home Minister may be ascertained.

As the Solicitor General said that it was an attempt to politicise the issue, Justice Joseph said that it would not impact them.

However, Justice Joseph said that the sentiments of the bench have been expressed by him and the sister judge Justice Nagarathna.

At the outset of the hearing, Solicitor General Mehta had sought the adjournment of the hearing telling the court that both he and senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi were engaged in the constitution bench hearing relating to the issue seeking legal recognition of the same sex marriage.

Adjourning the matter, the bench posted it for hearing in July after the top court reopens after its summer vacation.