SC Dismisses Telangana’s Appeal on BC Quota

Hyderabad: The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed an appeal filed by the Telangana government challenging the Telangana High Court’s interim stay orders on the enhancement of BC reservation in local body elections from 25 per cent to 42 per cent.

The two-judge apex court bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta declined to interfere with the High Court’s stay and said that the local body elections may be conducted with the existing reservations i.e 50 per cent reservations including SC, ST and BC quota.

The bench observed that it could not take a view that was inconsistent with the Constitution Bench rulings, fixing a 50 per cent ceiling on total reservations in local body elections. It was also not persuaded with the state government’s argument that 119 elected MLAs of Telangana Assembly unanimously approved to enhance the reservations to 42 per cent to the BCs and it cannot be interfered.

“The state’s appeal was dismissed.... You may continue with your elections with existing 50 percent reservations. This decision will not prevent the High Court from deciding the matter on its own merits,” the Bench noted.

Arguing on behalf of the state government, senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi said that the courts cannot interfere in the government’s policy-making, which is a part of the state`s prerogative powers.

‘When 119 elected representatives (MLAs) unanimously approved the decision for welfare and equitable development of BCs, who were they (High Court) to issue the stay orders and who were to obstruct the Legislative decision. Moreover, how could they pass such a stay order without the state’s pleadings,” Singhvi argued.

The apex court bench pointed out that the state`s contention was heard by the High Court and questioned why not the state issued the GO for enhancement of reservations much earlier, not just before a day of election schedule notification. Further, the Bench also questioned the state why the GO9 was issued, when the Bills for enhancement of Reservations did not attain final stage like approval from Governor and President.

In response, Singhvi argued that the delay arose because the Governor had withheld assent to the Bill. Further argued that the enhanced quota was a “policy decision” aimed at empowering marginalised communities and that there was “a misconception that reservations cannot exceed 50 per cent.”

He referred to the 1992 judgment in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, which upheld the Mandal Commission recommendations, to contend that the 50 per cent ceiling could be breached in exceptional circumstances.

When the Bench pointed out that the Bill had yet to receive formal assent, Singhvi referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Tamil Nadu Governor case, arguing that the concept of “deemed assent” now applied if the Governor failed to act within a stipulated time period.

Senior counsel Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Kondam Vivek Reddy representing the petitioners who filed the case before the High Court, challenging the GO 9, argued that there must be mandamus from the apex court, before considering it as deemed assent.

“The Tamil Nadu government had approached the Supreme Court on delay by the Governor and subsequently, the court gave a Mandamus of deemed assent. But the Telangana government has never approached the court nor published it in the Gazette… They also brought to the notice of the court that a reference was sought by the President under Article 143 of the Constitution seeking clarity on whether the judiciary can fix timelines for the President and State Governors to clear state Bills,” they argued.

They also argued that the Supreme Court’s 2021 ruling in Vikas Kishanrao Gawali had reaffirmed that reservations in local body elections cannot exceed 50 per cent. Further, they argued that the state’s ordinances had also lapsed in the middle of September, But the GO was issued on September 27, which is legally untenable.

When the state`s counsel Singhvi said that the Gawali case cannot be taken in the said issue, the Bench observed “You cannot expect us to take a view different from the Constitution Bench about the 50 per cent ceiling.”

When the Bench said that it is dismissing the appeal filed by the state and may go on with the elections with existing 50 percent reservations, senior counsel Singhvi urged the bench to indicate that it does not affect the cases before the High Court. The bench agreed and said that the dismissal of the special leave petition before it will not affect the High Court’s hearings in deciding the pending writ petitions on its own merits.