HYDERABAD: A division bench of the Telangana High Court comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G M Mohiuddin on Wednesday adjourned the hearing to 2.15 pm on Thursday on a batch of seven writ petitions challenging the state government’s decision to enhance reservations for Backward Classes (BCs) to 42% in the ensuing local body elections.
The petitions sought suspension of GO Ms No 9 issued by the BC Welfare department on September 26, 2025, increasing BC reservations from 23% to 42%.
Senior counsel K Vivek Reddy, appearing for one of the petitioners, argued that the government’s move was unconstitutional as the amendment to the Panchayat Raj Act, though passed by both Houses of the Legislature on August 31, 2025, was still awaiting the Governor’s assent. In this interim period, the government issued GO Ms No 9, which, he said, violated the Supreme Court’s judgment that no state or Union Territory could exceed the 50% cap on reservations.
He contended that elections cannot be held until the “triple test” mandated by the Supreme Court is satisfied. These include: Constitution of a dedicated commission to collect empirical data on BCs; determination of the proportion of reservation required; ensuring the aggregate reservation for SCs, STs, and BCs does not exceed 50%.
Senior counsel further pointed out that though a BC Commission had been set up in Telangana, its report was neither published nor placed in the public domain, making the allocation of 42% quota arbitrary and unconstitutional. He reminded the court that the Maharashtra government’s similar attempt to enhance BC quota beyond 50% had been struck down by the Supreme Court.
Supporting these arguments, senior counsel B Mayur Reddy, representing petitioners B Madhav Reddy and Goreti Venkatesh, recalled that the high court had previously stayed local body elections when the state attempted to implement 34% BC quota, which also breached the reservation ceiling.
Increase in reservation a welfare measure: Govt
Another counsel, appearing for petitioner S Laxmaiah, general secretary of Madiwala Machadeva Rajakula Sangham, pressed for category-wise reservations within the BC quota (BC-A, BC-B, BC-C, BC-D and BC-E). He argued that unless category-wise distribution is ensured, the most marginalised among BCs, such as communities still engaged in begging or working as graveyard watchmen, would continue to remain deprived.
Senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the Telangana government, defended the decision as a welfare measure. He said that the BC Commission had collected and analysed empirical data, which formed the basis for fixing the 42% quota.
Singhvi maintained that the measure was progressive and should be welcomed. He also contended that the assent to the amendment to the Panchayat Raj Act was pending with the Governor, and in such cases, it should be treated as having received “deemed assent.”
Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh questioned the government on several points. He asked Singhvi whether the earlier ordinance passed in July 2025 was gazetted and, if the assent was deemed, why the government did not clarify this formally.
He also expressed concern over the non-publication of the BC Commission report. “When empirical data was collected, why was it not gazetted or made public? Why were objections not invited from the general public?” he asked.
The bench further questioned how the state could allot reservations to BCs in local body elections on the basis of state-wide data as a single unit, rather than considering district-wise or local variations.
Responding, Singhvi said it was a policy decision of the government not to call for objections, as the Commission was a dedicated body and had examined all aspects of BC representation. The bench also cited a three-judge bench Supreme Court judgment that reiterated that states must pass the “triple test” before implementing enhanced quotas in local body elections.
The bench clarified that none of the 40 implead petitioners would be permitted to argue at this stage and that their submissions would be considered during the final hearing.
The court, however, did not pass any interim order on senior counsel Vivek Reddy’s plea seeking a direction to halt the election process, even as the nomination process had already commenced, though the official notification was yet to be issued.
The matter was adjourned to 2.15 pm on Thursday for further hearing, when the advocate-general and senior counsel Singhvi are expected to get instructions on the ordinance and assent issue.
