HC Adjourns Hearing On BC Reservations To Oct 9

The Telangana High Court today adjourned the hearing on the issue of 42% reservations for Backward Classes (BCs) in local body elections to Thursday at 2:15 pm.

However, as the court did not stay the election process, the State Election Commission (SEC) is scheduled to release the official notification for the elections on Thursday.

The State government had issued GO No 9, providing 42% reservation for BCs in local body elections. The move was challenged by two persons named Buttembari Madhav Reddy and Samudrala Ramesh, who filed petitions questioning the legality of the GO. BC Welfare Association leader R Krishnaiah, Congress leader V Hanumantha Rao and several other BC leaders filed implead petitions supporting the reservations.

When the matter came up before a division bench headed by Chief Justice A K Singh, the petitioners' counsels argued that even if the government intended to enhance reservations, the total should not exceed 50%, as stipulated by the Supreme Court. They contended that the ceiling applied to all categories except Scheduled Tribes (STs) in agency areas.

They also said that while the State had conducted a BC caste census, the data had not been disclosed. They also asked how 42% BC reservations could be justified without considering the SC and ST populations, reminding the bench that the same court had struck down 34% BC reservations in 2018.

Appearing for the State government, senior Supreme Court advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that Governors were stalling laws passed by elected legislatures, thereby paralyzing governance. He said that the Telangana Governor had not acted on the BC reservation bill for several months, nor returned it to the Assembly. "How can laws made by elected Assemblies remain unapproved?" he asked, citing a similar case in Tamil Nadu where a bill had been pending with the Governor for five years.

Singhvi informed the bench that the election schedule had already been released and, as per established legal precedents, courts should not interfere once the election process had begun.

He accused the Governors of misusing Article 200 of the Constitution and said that the delay prevented governments from fulfilling the people's aspirations. He urged the court not to grant a stay on the GO, which he claimed was issued after a comprehensive study, and requested the court to decide on the GO only after hearing the complete arguments from both sides.

After hearing the submissions, the bench adjourned the case to Thursday. It did not consider the petitioners' plea to stay the issuance of the election notification.