HYDERABAD: The Telangana High Court on Saturday asked the state government how it could issue a GO enhancing reservations for Backward Classes (BCs) in the forthcoming local body elections when Section 285A of the Panchayat Raj Act, 2018, remains unamended.
A bench of Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili and Justice B Vijaysen Reddy, while hearing two writ petitions, issued notices to the government and other authorities and adjourned the matter to October 8, but not before posing some pointed questions.
HC: Bills with Guv, why the hurry?
The petitions challenge GO Ms No. 9, dated September 26, 2025, issued by the BC Welfare department, which provides 42% reservation for BCs in panchayat elections. Petitioners Goreti Venkatesh from Nalgonda and B Madhav Reddy, a social activist from Medchal-Malkajgiri, argued that the order violates Section 285A of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018, Section 29A of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019, and Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.
They said the move raises total reservations in local body polls to 67% (42% BCs, 15% SCs, 10% STs), breaching the 50% ceiling set by the Supreme Court. They asked the court to strike down the GO as unconstitutional, arbitrary, and beyond the government’s powers.
During arguments, Justice Shavili questioned Advocate General A Sudershan Reddy on how the state could proceed when the amendment to Section 285A was still pending. “As long as Section 285A of the Act is staring at you and is not amended, how can the government come up with GO 9 allocating 42% reservations to BCs in local body elections?” the judge asked.
The bench noted that the amendment to Section 285A, which proposes removal of the 50% cap, has been passed by both Houses of the Legislature but was awaiting the Governor’s assent.
While pointing to legal hurdles, the bench refrained from staying the GO, considering the state’s efforts in setting up a BC Commission and gathering empirical data. “If we stay this GO, the entire work put in by the government will come to square one. The purpose for which the BC Commission was constituted will go waste,” Justice Shavili said.
The Advocate General argued that the amendment bill’s pendency with the Governor does not prevent the government from implementing welfare measures. He said the GO reflected the state’s commitment to social justice for BCs.
Senior counsel B Mayur Reddy, for one of the petitioners, contended that the executive was bypassing legislative intent by breaching the reservation ceiling. “This move of the executive, allocating 42% to BCs and pushing total reservations to 67%, is clearly unconstitutional,” he said.
Senior counsel G Vidyasagar, for the State Election Commission (SEC), stated that polls cannot be held until the government issues a notification, and that the SEC requires 45 days from the notification date to conduct elections.
The bench directed the chief secretary, principal secretaries of BC Welfare, Panchayat Raj, General Administration and Law & Legislative Affairs, and the State Election Commissioner to file their responses by October 8.