The Supreme Court has decided not to intervene with a Telangana High Court order that placed a temporary halt on two government directives aimed at increasing reservations for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in local bodies. This increase would have raised the total OBC reservation to 42%, pushing the overall reservation in municipalities and panchayats to 67%, which exceeds the 50% limit established by earlier Supreme Court rulings.
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta stated that they could not deviate from the Constitution Bench’s decision, which set a 50% cap on total reservations for local body elections. They clarified that this dismissal would not impact the ongoing proceedings in the high court.
The Telangana government had appealed the High Court’s October 9 order, which suspended the proposed increase in OBC quotas. The government’s move, which included 15% for Scheduled Castes and 10% for Scheduled Tribes, would have resulted in a total reservation of 67%, surpassing the Supreme Court’s established 50% ceiling.
Representing the state, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the increased quota was a policy decision intended to benefit marginalized communities and that the 50% limit is not an absolute rule. He cited the Indra Sawhney judgment, suggesting that exceeding the cap is permissible in exceptional circumstances.
Singhvi questioned the authority of an elected government if it cannot implement socio-economic policies, urging for a detailed hearing. However, the bench raised concerns about the timing and legality of the government’s actions, particularly issuing the orders on the same day elections were being notified, and before the legislative process was finalized.
The state’s counsel also mentioned reliance on the Vikas Kishanrao Gawali judgment and empirical data from a socio-economic survey, but the court highlighted the absence of a ‘triple test’ (identifying backwardness, ensuring adequate representation, and maintaining administrative efficiency) as per the K Krishna Murthy precedent.
When the court pointed out that the relevant bill had not yet received presidential assent, Singhvi referenced the Tamil Nadu Governor case, arguing for the concept of ‘deemed assent’ if the Governor delays action. However, this ruling itself is under review by a Constitution Bench.
On the other side, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing a social activist who challenged the state’s orders, contended that the High Court’s stay was in line with established constitutional principles and Supreme Court judgments. He also noted that the state’s ordinances had lapsed, making the subsequent GOs legally questionable.
The Supreme Court bench, appearing to agree with these points, concluded that they could not adopt a view contrary to the Constitution Bench’s ruling on the 50% ceiling. The Telangana government had argued in its petition that the 50% cap was a guideline, not an absolute bar, and presented data from a survey indicating that backward classes constitute about 56.33% of the state’s population. The government’s proposed 42% reservation for OBCs was based on a commission’s recommendation, but the bill required presidential assent, which was still pending despite the government issuing the GOs.
The court’s decision means that local body elections in Telangana, scheduled for October 23 and 27, will proceed with seats allocated to open categories where the increased reservation was intended, ensuring the overall reservation limit remains within the 50% ceiling.