The Telangana High Court has adjourned a significant writ petition until October 8, challenging the 42% reservations set for Backward Classes (BCs) in the forthcoming local body elections. The petition was filed through a House motion.
A Bench comprising Justices B. Vijaysen Reddy and Abhinand Kumar Shavili, after hearing arguments from both the government and the petitioners, clarified that the case would proceed with adjudication even if an election notification for local bodies is issued before the next hearing. This assurance came after petitioners’ counsels expressed concern that the government might argue against the maintainability of petitions filed post-notification.
The Bench firmly stated, “Since this writ petition was issued before the notification was issued, the cause survives and the matter would be heard.”
Previously, the petitioners’ legal representatives contested the legitimacy of GO Ms. No. 9, which was issued on Friday, mandating a 42% reservation for BCs in local government bodies. They argued that this move directly contravenes the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in the Indra Sawhney case, which established a 50% ceiling on vertical reservations.
With Telangana’s government elevating BC reservations from 25% to 42%, the combined total reservations (including 15% for Scheduled Castes and 10% for Scheduled Tribes) now stand at 67%. This substantial increase, according to the petitioners, represents a clear breach of the apex court’s 50% limit, exceeding the legislative cap not by a small margin, but by a significant 17%.
Advocate General A. Sudarshan Reddy informed the Bench that the government had already amended Section 285-A of the Panchayat Raj Act, which previously stipulated specific reservation figures. However, the petitioners’ counsel highlighted that the Governor had not yet given assent to the two bills passed by the Telangana Assembly that introduced these amendments.
The Bench then queried the Advocate General: “When the Governor had not given consent to the Bill, can the government come out with a GO that provides enhancement of reservations based on the Bill?” The AG countered that the ‘legislative competence’ of the Assembly to enact such a law cannot be questioned. He further explained that while the Bill awaits the Governor’s approval, the Supreme Court has recently held that bills could be considered ‘deemed to be passed’ if consent is withheld beyond specific periods (one month in some cases, three months in others).
However, the petitioner’s advocate pointed out that even the one-month period for the Governor’s consent on the Bill amending Section 285-A of the PR Act had not yet elapsed. As arguments progressed, the Bench asked the AG to seek instructions from the government on whether it could postpone the elections for a few days to gain clarity on the Governor’s consent.
The AG later informed the Bench that he could not ascertain the government’s position on deferring the elections and requested the hearing be rescheduled. He contended there was no urgent need to hear a House Motion. Ultimately, the Bench adjourned the hearing to October 8.