Bengaluru, Apr 16 (Reporter) Karnataka Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot on Wednesday flagged constitutional concerns over a proposed 4 per cent reservation exclusively for the Muslim community in government tenders, stating it may amount to religion-based reservation in violation of Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution. In a detailed note, the Governor said such a provision "may be construed as reservation for the community based on religion," and accordingly reserved the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements (Amendment) Bill, 2025, for the consideration of President Droupadi Murmu. The Bill, passed by both Houses of the State Legislature and submitted for gubernatorial assent on April 1, seeks to amend Section 6 of the 1999 Act by raising the tender limit from ₹1 crore to ₹2 crore and mandating 4 per cent of such tenders be reserved for contractors from Category-II(B) of the Backward Classes — a classification that includes only Muslims, as per a 1994 Government Order. Gehlot noted that the state government had itself withdrawn the 4 per cent reservation under Category-II(B) via an order dated March 27, 2023, which is now under challenge in the Supreme Court. The apex court has stayed the order, and the matter remains pending. "Since the reservation for Category-II(B) is in question and pending for adjudication in Hon’ble Supreme Court… there is a high chance that it might be construed as reservation based on religion… which may lead to more legal complications," Gehlot wrote. Gehlot further cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Saurabh Chaudri vs Union of India (2003), which ruled that affirmative action must be based on social and educational backwardness, not religion. The Governor also referred to the 2010 Calcutta High Court decision striking down the classification of 77 Muslim communities as OBCs for having been based solely on religion — a case currently under appeal in the Supreme Court. Invoking Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution, Gehlot said, "To avoid constitutional complications, I deem it fit to reserve the Bill for the kind consideration of the Hon’ble President." He backed his decision with reference to Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs State of Bihar (1983), which upheld the Governor's discretion to reserve a Bill for Presidential assent. The Bill was introduced in line with Budget proposals for 2025–26 and aimed at boosting employment opportunities among Backward Classes in public procurement. With the Governor's decision, the fate of the Bill now lies with the Union Government and the President of India...////...