According to Vakulabharanam Krishna Mohan Rao, the former Chairman of the Telangana State Backward Classes Commission, the state government has no alternative but to completely restart its efforts to implement 42% Backward Classes (BC) reservations in Telangana’s rural local bodies. He asserts that the failure to establish a legally sound policy, one that aligns with Supreme Court judgments, has led to this critical juncture.
Rao emphasized that for any state attempting to exceed the 50% reservation ceiling, a fundamental requirement is that the commissions involved must be quasi-judicial, operate independently, and possess the authority of a civil court. Without addressing the current policy’s legal shortcomings from the very beginning, he believes the desired outcome cannot be achieved.
He pointed out that all three crucial stages leading to the 42% reservations lacked proper legal standing and statutory powers: from the Social, Educational, Employment, Economic, Political, Caste (SEEEPC) Survey, to the formation of the Dedicated Commission led by Busani Venkateshwar Rao, and finally, the Justice Sudershan Reddy Committee.
Recalling the constitutional framework, Rao highlighted that the Supreme Court, in the landmark Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) case, mandated that reservations must be based on current empirical data and generally cannot surpass the 50% limit, except in genuinely extraordinary, proven circumstances. Later, in K. Krishna Murthy v. Union of India (2010), the Court outlined a ‘Triple Test’ for local body reservations: requiring a dedicated independent commission to conduct an empirical survey, quantifiable data to prove inadequate representation, and adherence to the 50% overall quota ceiling. This ‘Triple Test’ was further reaffirmed in the Vikas Kishanrao Gawali v. State of Maharashtra (2021) case.
Rao concluded that Telangana’s approach failed to meet these essential constitutional benchmarks. The SEEEPC Survey, conducted by the Planning Department, was not overseen by a statutory commission. Furthermore, the Busani Venkateshwar Rao Commission was a single-member body headed by a retired IAS officer, lacking a statutory foundation under Article 340 and proper multi-expert participation. Similarly, while highly respected, the Justice Sudarshan Reddy Committee acted merely as an advisory body, without the necessary statutory mandate. Neither of these bodies conducted detailed household-level socio-economic field surveys or broad statewide public hearings, which are crucial for establishing a legally defensible reservation policy.