HYDERABAD: Senior leaders of the ruling Congress, including Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy, TPCC president B Mahesh Kumar Goud, AICC Telangana in-charge Meenakshi Natarajan and Deputy Chief Minister Mallu Bhatti Vikramarka, are learnt to have held separate meetings a day before the Supreme Court hears a plea challenging the validity of a GO granting 42% reservation to Backward Classes in local body elections.
Later in the day, Deputy Chief Minister Mallu Bhatti Vikramarka and BC Welfare Minister Ponnam Prabhakar left for Delhi to consult legal counsel.
TPCC president B Mahesh Kumar Goud told TNIE that the party and the state government had resolved to present a strong case to uphold BC reservations. He added that he too would travel to Delhi to consult legal experts. “The court will give a favourable decision as the Congress government has issued the GO in accordance with all legal provisions,” Mahesh asserted.
Sources said senior officials named as respondents in the case have also travelled to Delhi with relevant documents, including the caste survey and the one-man commission report.
Senior advocates, including Rajya Sabha MP Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Siddhartha Dave, are expected to represent the Telangana government in the apex court.
The chief minister is understood to have directed ministers Vikramarka and Prabhakar to ensure the government’s position is strongly presented before the Court.
The petition, filed by Vanga Gopal Reddy, challenges GO Ms No. 9 issued by the BC Welfare department, which provides 42% reservation to BCs in local bodies.
The petitioner contends that the order breaches the 50 per cent ceiling on reservations and violates Section 285A of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act.
Panel report not made public: Petitioner
The petitioner also argues that the government’s reliance on Articles 243D(6) and 243T(6) of the Constitution is misplaced, and that the one-man commission report cited as the basis for the decision was neither made public nor placed before the legislature.
The petition further claims that the report does not meet the standard of empirical evidence required by the Supreme Court in the K Krishna Murthy case.