The Andhra Pradesh high court on Wednesday questioned the state government’s decision to provide 34% reservation to the Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in local bodies, seeking the data and rationale behind the enhanced quota, people familiar with the matter said on Thursday.
A division bench of the high court comprising Chief Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Challa Gunaranjan passed the orders, directing the state municipal administration and panchayat raj departments to place before the bench all relevant details and statistical data on the basis of which 34% reservation was provided to OBCs in local bodies.
Chief minister N Chandrababu Naidu had announced in the state assembly on August 18 that the state government would provide 34% reservation for OBCs in rural local bodies and 33.33% in urban local bodies, stating that it was a major step towards ensuring political empowerment and social justice for backward communities.
The announcement was made following a decision taken by the state cabinet earlier that day, endorsing the state government’s decision to enhance OBC reservations from 24.15% to 34% in local bodies.
Hearing arguments on two separate public interest litigation (PIL) petitions, the high court bench questioned the state government on the criteria and data used to arrive at the enhanced quota and asked how the government intended to justify its decision.
{{/usCountry}}Hearing arguments on two separate public interest litigation (PIL) petitions, the high court bench questioned the state government on the criteria and data used to arrive at the enhanced quota and asked how the government intended to justify its decision.
{{/usCountry}}It also sought an explanation on how the government had issued orders providing an enhanced quota for OBCs in local body elections based on a report of the dedicated commission headed by Rajiv Ranjan Mishra, when the report itself had reportedly not yet been formally approved by the government.
The court further questioned the government’s decision not to make the data contained in the commission’s report public if the same statistics had been relied upon while finalising the reservations.
Advocate Tandava Yogesh, one of the petitioners, said fixing OBC reservations at 34% and 33.33% in rural and urban local bodies, respectively, was unconstitutional and should be quashed.
Arguing the case in person, Yogesh argued that clear judgments of the high court and the Supreme Court Constitution bench had established that the total reservations for Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs) and OBCs in local bodies could not exceed 50%.
Appearing for the municipal administration and panchayat raj departments, senior counsel Devadatt Kamat submitted that the government had fixed the 34% OBC reservation on the basis of the comprehensive family survey and the report of the dedicated commission.
Kamat argued that there was no specific provision in the Constitution stating that reservations in local bodies could not exceed 50%.
State advocate general Dammalapati Srinivas informed the high court that the report submitted by retired IAS officer Rajiv Ranjan Mishra, who was appointed to study the socio-economic and other conditions of OBC communities, was still under consideration by the state government.
The advocate general said the commission had made several recommendations and that the government had not yet taken any decision on formally approving those recommendations.
At the same time, he submitted that the government had taken the decision to provide 34% reservation to OBCs on the basis of the statistical data contained in the commission’s report.
The matter will come up for further hearing on September 16, when the government is expected to continue its submissions.