The Telangana High Court has issued a notice in response to a writ petition challenging the State’s decision to provide 42% reservation for Backward Classes in upcoming local body elections. The petitioners argued that the move violates the Supreme Court’s 50% cap on total reservations and lacks constitutional assent.
Published Date – 27 September 2025, 10:57 PM
By Legal Correspondent
Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Saturday issued a notice in a writ petition challenging the recent government order providing 42 percent reservation for Backward Classes (BCs) in the upcoming local body elections.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavali and Justice B Vijaysen Reddy heard the plea based on a special motion moved before court on a holiday. The bench questioned how the GO would survive when the legislative action of removing the 50 percent cap under Section 285A of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 was not assented by the Governor.
In reply Advocate General A Sudarshan Reddy stated that legislative competence was enough to issue the GO though the assent was not obtained. The Bench clarified that even if an election notification was issued in the meantime, the writ petitions would continue to hold relevance and would be adjudicated on their merits, since they were filed prior to the issuance of the election notification.
The writ petition was filed by Buttemgari Madhava Reddy, a social activist from Keshavapur Village, Muduchinthalapally Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District, and another petitioner. They challenged the legality and constitutionality of G.O.Ms. No. 09 of 2025, dated September 26, 2025, which proposes to provide 42% reservation to Backward Classes in the local body elections.
The petitioners contended that the move to increase the BC reservation from the current 25% to 42% was in violation of the 50% ceiling on reservations set by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of K. Krishna Murthy vs Union of India. They argued that the total reservation, now including 15% for Scheduled Castes and 10% for Scheduled Tribes, would rise to 67%, thereby exceeding the constitutional limit.
The petitioners sought the High Court to strike down the government order and direct the State to conduct local body elections in accordance with the reservation formula provided under Section 285A, which caps total reservations at 50%.
The petitioners also contended that while the State had previously attempted to enhance BC reservation to 42%, those efforts did not materialize due to legal hurdles, including the deletion of the relevant provision under Section 285A. Moreover, such legislative changes had neither received the assent of the Governor nor the President of India, a necessary constitutional requirement in this context.
The petition asserted that the State government’s action was arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to established constitutional principles and Supreme Court rulings. The court, while taking note of these submissions, issued a notice to the State government and adjourned the matter to October 8 for further proceedings.
