A day after the Telangana government issued an order providing 42% reservations to the other backward classes (OBCs) in the local bodies, the state high court on Saturday questioned the propriety of issuing an administrative order to implement the reservations, when the bill passed by the state assembly is pending with governor for approval, people familiar with the matter said.
A division bench of the state high court comprising Justice S Abhinand Kumar and Justice B Vijaysen Reddy directed that the state government should proceed strictly in accordance with the law to provide reservations to the OBCs.
The bench, which took up the hearing on a lunch motion petition filed by a social activist Buttenagari Madhava Reddy challenging the GO to provide 42% quota to the OBCs in the local bodies, asked advocate general A Sudarshan Reddy to spell out the government’s stand within two days.
The bench made it clear that any decision on enhancing the quota must strictly comply with constitutional provisions and legal limits prescribed by the Supreme Court. Posting the matter for further hearing on October 8, the court observed that the state must reconcile its welfare objectives with the framework of law before proceeding.
The petitioner argued that OBC reservations were increased from 27 to 42%, pushing the total reservations beyond 67%. He pointed out that the Constitution stipulates that reservations should not exceed 50%. He also brought to the court’s notice that, under the Panchayat Raj Act, reservations should be capped at 50%.
{{/usCountry}}The petitioner argued that OBC reservations were increased from 27 to 42%, pushing the total reservations beyond 67%. He pointed out that the Constitution stipulates that reservations should not exceed 50%. He also brought to the court’s notice that, under the Panchayat Raj Act, reservations should be capped at 50%.
{{/usCountry}}The petitioner also pointed out that the Telangana Assembly had passed a bill amending Section 285A of the Panchayat Raj Act, and the bill was still pending with the governor. The bench questioned the Advocate General (AG) on how the government could issue a GO while the matter was still pending with the governor.
The AG sought two days’ time to explain the government’s stand, and the court granted permission. The bench further questioned the Election Commission’s counsel whether the poll notification would be withheld until October 6. “Even if the notification is issued, the matter would be examined on merit,” the bench said, adjourning the case to October 8 for next hearing.