The Supreme Court will delve into a significant legal challenge this Monday, October 6, 2025, concerning an order from the Telangana government led by Revanth Reddy. This order dramatically increases the reservation for Backward Classes in local municipalities and panchayats to 42%, pushing the total reservation across all categories in these bodies to an unprecedented 67%.
At the heart of the petition is a crucial constitutional question: Do states have the authority to exceed the long-standing 50% reservation cap in local bodies? This legal scrutiny begins just as the Telangana State Election Commission has announced that the panchayat election process will kick off on October 9, with voting scheduled in two phases on October 23 and October 27.
Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta will preside over the hearing for this petition, which was submitted by agriculturist Vanga Gopal Reddy through his counsel, advocate Somiran Sharma. The challenge specifically targets the Telangana government’s order dated September 26.
The petition emphatically states that “when combined with the existing 15% for Scheduled Castes and 10% for Scheduled Tribes, the total reservation surges past 67%. This directly contravenes the 50% ceiling that has been judicially mandated by the Supreme Court.”
It’s important to remember that the 50% reservation cap was firmly established by a nine-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in its landmark 1992 judgment on the Mandal Commission case.
A Similar Legal Battle in Madhya Pradesh
This upcoming Supreme Court hearing on Telangana’s OBC quota mirrors similar legal challenges emerging from states like Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, where efforts are also underway to increase OBC reservations in state services beyond the 50% limit.
Next week, the apex court will also address petitions disputing the legality of Section 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Lok Seva (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Amendment Act, 1994, as revised in 2019. This amendment elevated the OBC quota from 14% to 27%. Madhya Pradesh contends that despite OBCs comprising over half its population, they remain “significantly underrepresented in educational institutions, government employment, and political spheres.” The state further argues that the 50% reservation ceiling should be considered a “flexible guideline rather than an unchangeable constitutional barrier.”
Telangana’s September 26 order came after the state’s prior attempt to pass The Telangana Backward Classes (Reservations of Seats in Rural and Urban Local Bodies) Bill, 2025, which aimed to boost OBC seats in local bodies by 42%. However, the petition highlights that this Bill never received approval from either the Governor or the President.
The petition asserts, “This fact alone demonstrates that increasing reservations beyond the 50% cap is legally unacceptable and directly contradicts established Supreme Court precedents.”
Mr. Reddy further argues that the Telangana government’s order to expand the OBC quota in local bodies directly infringes upon Section 285A of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018. This section explicitly codified the 50% ceiling, aligning with the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in K. Krishna Murthy versus Union of India.
The petition states, “Despite this clear statutory prohibition, the State has attempted to enforce the challenged Government Order, thereby acting ultra vires the Constitution as well as the relevant statute.”
The landmark K. Krishna Murthy judgment clearly concluded that “the character and objective of reservations within local self-governance differs significantly from those in higher education and public sector employment… Therefore, the 50% upper limit for vertical reservations benefitting Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes must not be surpassed in local self-government.”
The petition also references the Supreme Court’s 2021 ruling in the Vikas Kishanrao Gawali case, which involved Maharashtra’s local body elections. In that decision, the court firmly reaffirmed that the 50% reservation ceiling cannot be exceeded.
Mr. Reddy contends that Telangana’s reliance on Articles 243D(6) and 243T(6) — constitutional provisions that grant states the power to reserve seats for Backward Classes in panchayats and municipalities — is entirely misplaced.
Mr. Reddy asserts, “While these Constitutional provisions do empower a State Legislature to implement reservations for Backward Classes in local governance, this enabling power is unequivocally constrained by constitutional limits, specifically the judicially established 50% ceiling. Allowing Telangana’s current action would not only erode the rule of law but also severely disadvantage citizens like the petitioner, who are entitled to participate and compete in local self-government elections on an equal footing.”