On March 21, 2025, the Karnataka Assembly has passed a bill amending the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement (KTPP) Act to establish a 4% reservation in public contracts for Category II(B), including backward castes within the Muslim community. This reservation pertains to government civil works contracts valued up to Rs. 2 crore, an increase from the prior limit of Rs. 1 crore.
The goal of this legislation is to increase the participation of underserved Muslim communities in public procurement processes. Since the governing Congress party argues for the need and the opposition BJP doubts its constitutional legality, it has caused significant political debate.
Karnataka Governor Thawar Chand Gehlot has forwarded a bill that was approved by both houses of the state’s legislature to President Droupadi Murmu for her approval, granting Muslims quota in government contracts. The BJP claimed the Bill was illegal because there is no provision in the Indian Constitution permitting religion-based reservations. It said that the Bill is a reflection of the ruling Congress’s appeasement tactics.
What is this law about?
The KTPP Act, 1999, was enforced to promote openness, fairness, and responsibility in how public entities in the state handle their procurement processes. The Act establishes clear and consistent procedures for inviting, processing, and accepting tenders related to the procurement of goods, services, and civil works by government departments, public sector undertakings, and local bodies. The Act seeks to simplify procurement processes to help avoid irregularities and ensure that public funds are used efficiently.
Major amendments over time
Since it was first introduced, the KTPP Act has seen various updates to tackle new challenges and enhance procurement practices. Some important changes were made in 2007, to introduce e-procurement and e-procurement platform to bring in best practices in public procurement. In 2017, overcome the unemployment problem in the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes Community and to encourage their participation in such number of works not exceeding 17.15 percent for persons belonging to the Scheduled castes and not exceeding 6.95 percent for the persons belonging to the Scheduled tribes out of the total number of Government construction works upto Rupees 50.00 lakhs. The 2020 amendment, increase the limit for value of procurement of goods and services for application of provisions of this Act from rupees one lakh to rupees five lakhs. The recent amendment of 2025 to the KTPP Act, which established a 4% reservation in public procurement contracts for contractors from Category II(B) of the state’s Other Backward Classes (OBC) list, encompassing Muslims This reservation is relevant for civil works contracts worth up to Rs.2 crore and for goods or services contracts valued at up to Rs.1 crore. The amendment seeks to foster inclusivity and create economic opportunities for communities that have been historically marginalised.
The latest amendment has ignited much political and legal discourse. Critics, particularly members of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), contend that the reservation is illegal, because it confers advantages based on religion, which is prohibited by the Indian Constitution. The Karnataka government asserts that the quota is predicated on social and educational backwardness rather than religion, aiming to elevate marginalised populations. The dispute prompted the Governor of Karnataka to submit the law to the President of India for approval, citing apprehensions over its constitutionality.
Constitutional position
Critics contend that the introduction of reservations or special benefits exclusively based on religious identity could infringe upon the secular essence of the Constitution and provisions such as Article 15(1), which forbids discrimination based on religion. Although the Constitution permits affirmative action for classes deemed socially and educationally disadvantaged under Article 15(4) and 16(4), it is imperative that any classification relies on objective measures of backwardness rather than solely on religious identity. The Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) unequivocally determined that religion, in itself, cannot serve as a foundation for reservation; however, the backwardness of a religious group may be taken into account if it is suitably categorised. Consequently, establishing a direct connection between the findings of the Sachar Committee and religion-based reservations, in the absence of a thorough socio-economic evaluation and classification, may be perceived as constitutionally questionable and could potentially be invalidated for contravening the principle of equality before the law as enshrined in Article 14.
The Sachar Committee Report (2006) indicated that Muslims in India, albeit the largest minority, are disadvantaged compared to most other socio-religious groups regarding socio-economic development. It emphasised that Muslims exhibited low literacy rates, particularly among women, and faced inadequate access to higher education and government employment opportunities. The population was identified as under-represented in official institutions such as civil services, law enforcement, and the court, while being predominantly employed in low-wage informal sector positions with no job security. Financial exclusion was a significant issue, as locations with Muslim populations exhibited a scarcity of bank branches, resulting in restricted access to credit and savings services. The research noted the ghettoisation of Muslims in metropolitan areas, partially attributed to discrimination in housing and education. The committee determined that the community was experiencing systemic social and economic marginalisation and suggested inclusive development strategies, enhanced data collecting, focused government initiatives, and affirmative action to ameliorate their circumstances.
What lies ahead?
The discourse regarding reservations for Muslims, prompted by the Sachar Committee’s findings and recent policy measures such as Karnataka’s 4% quota in public procurement, highlights the intricate interplay of social equity, constitutional tenets, and political determination. Although there is compelling evidence indicating the socio-economic marginalisation of specific segments within the Muslim community, the approach to remedying this situation—especially when articulated in religious contexts—invokes constitutional and legal considerations that warrant thorough examination. The issue now lies with the President of India, subsequent to the Governor’s referral, and the actions undertaken will probably establish a precedent for analogous policies throughout various states. Consequently, it is imperative to defer to the constitutional review and any prospective judicial interpretation prior to reaching conclusive determinations, while remaining cognisant of the necessity to harmonise equity with adherence to constitutional principles.
Dr. Zeeshan is an Assistant Professor of Law at Amity University Rajasthan and Dr. Alisha is an Assistant Professor of Law at Symbiosis Law School, Pune.
