The Telangana High Court has issued an interim stay on the implementation of Government Order (GO) MS No. 9, which proposed a 42% reservation for Backward Classes (BCs) in the forthcoming local body elections. This order was passed on October 9, effectively suspending the GO until further deliberation. The court has stipulated that the state government must submit its counter affidavit within a four-week window, following which the petitioners are allotted two weeks to respond. The subsequent hearing is scheduled for six weeks hence.
Legal & Political Debate against GO No.9
This legal development is a direct response to the Congress government’s issuance of GO No. 9, which sought to significantly increase BC representation. The GO immediately sparked both legal and political debate. Its challengers, such as Buttembari Madhavareddy and Samudrala Ramesh, filed petitions questioning the move, whereas proponents like R Krishnaiah and V Hanumantha Rao submitted implead petitions supporting the reservation policy. Chief Justice A.K. Singh presided over the hearings, in which the issue of legal validity and proportionality of the BC quota was debated extensively.
Telangana Govt’s Arguments…
In recent hearing in High Court, Advocate General Sudarshan Reddy, representing the state, argued that the Assembly had unanimously sanctioned a resolution regarding the BC caste census, emphasizing its comprehensiveness and lack of public objection. He referenced the fact that post-independence, Telangana uniquely conducted such a census. According to the Advocate General, the BC population is 57.6%, and the 42% reservation is justified in light of their documented political underrepresentation.
The Advocate General further contended that, as per legal precedents—including a Supreme Court judgment and examples from Tamil Nadu—a bill passed by the Assembly and not acted upon by the Governor within the stipulated period may be considered law in principle. He described the assembly's resolution as reflecting the “will of the people.” He also informed the court that the local body election notification had been duly issued, using this to argue that judicial interference post-notification is discouraged under Supreme Court precedent. Petitioners, conversely, contended that total reservations must not breach the 50% threshold established by constitutional jurisprudence.
Following these arguments, the High Court ordered a temporary halt to the GO’s operation, pending further submissions from both parties.
Objections over Election Process
Critics have raised concerns about the Congress government’s decision to move forward with the election process before resolving the legal and legislative questions surrounding BC reservations. The GO asserts that the reservations are necessary for the social and political empowerment of BCs, aligning with constitutional principles of equality and inclusive development. Detractors, however, argue that a GO lacks the legal sanctity of a formally enacted law, referencing Supreme Court invalidation of a similar GO in Maharashtra as a cautionary precedent.
Constitutionally, Articles 243D(6) and 243T(6) empower states to make reservations for BCs in Panchayats and municipalities. Nonetheless, the timing of the election notification—issued on the same day as the High Court hearing—has prompted additional scrutiny.
Controversy on Seat Reservation
Further complicating the matter are disputes regarding the reservation of non-tribal seats in Fifth Schedule areas, which are predominantly inhabited by tribal communities. Critics argue that designating ZPTC and MPTC seats for non-tribals undermines the rights of indigenous populations and contravenes the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act (PESA). Public organizations have called for withdrawal of such reservations and the cessation of the current rotation system, advocating instead for reservation of high-population ZPTC seats for Scheduled Tribes. Notably, in districts such as Bhadradri Kothagudem, Adilabad, Kumuram Bheem Asifabad, and Mahabubabad, general seat designations raise further concerns regarding the protection of tribal rights.
Reservation-related controversies in Telangana have become particularly visible in places like Bandaleemuru village, Manchal Mandal, where the absence of reservations for Scheduled Castes (SCs) in positions such as MPTC, Sarpanch, and ward members has led to plans for an election boycott. This scenario underscores the practical challenges and local discontent arising from the state’s reservation policies.
Judicial scrutiny has also intensified
The High Court questioned the government’s issuance of a Government Order (GO) prior to the passage of a legislative bill concerning Backward Class (BC) reservations. While the authority of the legislature to enact such laws remains uncontested, the bench highlighted that increases in reservation quotas—even those reflecting demographic realities, such as a 42% reservation for a 53% BC population—must adhere to established legal procedures. The issuance of GO 9, which would raise total reservations to 67%, is particularly contentious, given that it conflicts with Section 285A of the Panchayat Raj Act and established statutory limits.
Indira Sawhney V. Union of India Case
The legal and political complexities surrounding BC reservations in Telangana’s local body elections are substantial. A principal legal constraint is the 50% reservation cap mandated by the Supreme Court in Indira Sawhney v. Union of India (1992). While the Court has acknowledged possible exceptions for “extraordinary circumstances,” subsequent decisions—most notably K. Krishna Murthy v. Union of India (2010) and Vikas Kishanrao Gawali v. State of Maharashtra (2021)—have articulated a “triple test” that must be satisfied before political reservations for BCs in local bodies can be considered valid.
50% Cap and the "Triple Test" Criterion
This “triple test” requires: (a) the establishment of a dedicated commission to conduct an empirical inquiry into the status of backwardness among local bodies, (b) determination of reservation proportions based on the commission’s findings, and (c) assurance that the combined reservations for SCs, STs, and BCs do not exceed the 50% threshold.
The Telangana government has cited its 2014 caste census as evidence for current policy, but this data may not fully satisfy the Supreme Court’s requirement for a specialized commission focused on political backwardness at the local level. The High Court’s concern regarding the breach of the 50% cap by increasing total reservations to 67% is directly related to this requirement.
A further legal question revolves around the sufficiency of a GO versus the necessity for a formal legislative act. Supreme Court precedent, particularly concerning a similar case from Maharashtra, indicates that substantial changes to reservation policy require legislative approval and, in some cases, the Governor’s assent. The argument that a GO, absent the Governor’s approval, constitutes law is legally uncertain.
PESA Act and Fifth Schedule Areas
Social media debates have highlighted another dimension: alleged violations of the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act (PESA) of 1996. By designating ZPTC and MPTC seats in tribal-majority districts as “general seats,” the state government may be acting contrary to the PESA Act, which aims to empower tribal Gram Sabhas and secure self-governance for Scheduled Tribes. Such actions are likely to provoke further legal and political challenges.
Political Stand Point of Ruling Congress
Politically, the Congress government’s strategy appears to be an attempt to strengthen its support among BC communities, who form a significant portion of the state’s electorate. By issuing the GO and advancing local body elections, the government signals its commitment to these communities. However, pursuing this course without a firm legal foundation risks judicial intervention and possible invalidation of election results, posing a significant dilemma between political expediency and legal propriety.