E-Paper
Guv yet to give assent to T’gana quota ordinance
Telangana governor Jishnu Dev Varma has yet to assent to an ordinance for 42% OBC reservations, pending legal advice and high court directives.
Telangana governor Jishnu Dev Varma is yet to give his assent to the state government’s proposed ordinance seeking to provide 42% reservations for Other Backward Classes, even as the 30-day period set apart by the high court for finalising the reservations in upcoming local body elections ended on Friday.
The draft ordinance— Telangana Panchayat Raj (Amendment) Ordinance, 2025, was approved by the state cabinet headed by chief minister A Revanth Reddy on July 10 and was sent to the governor on July 14 for his assent. It has since remained pending with the governor, a Congress leader said on condition of anonymity.
“The chief minister, along with his senior cabinet colleagues, met the governor at Raj Bhavan on July 20 and requested him to give the assent to the ordinance at the earliest, so that the government would finalise the reservations for the local bodies. But so far, there has been no response from the Raj Bhavan,” he said.
On June 25, the Telangana high court directed the state government, State Election Commission (SEC) and other authorities concerned to complete the reservation process within 30 days.
“Since the state government has taken a policy decision to provide 42% quota to the OBCs, it can be done only through the ordinance, which requires the governor’s assent,” the Congress leader said.
An official privy to the developments in Raj Bhavan said the governor had forwarded the draft ordinance to the Union home ministry seeking its opinion, as the ordinance had several legal implications. “He is awaiting advice from the Centre,” said the official.
On Wednesday, Varma held a meeting with the state advocate general and other legal experts and shared his doubts regarding the ordinance with them. “He sought to know whether the issue falls within the jurisdiction of the state and whether the ordinance would hold up legally. He also referred to the Supreme Court judgment that the total reservations should not exceed 50%,” the official said.
According to the official, the advocate general explained in detail the powers available to the state government and the specific proposal to amend only Section 285(A) of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018, which stipulates that reservations for SCs, STs, and OBCs should not exceed 50% of the total seats/offices in local bodies.
The amendment seeks to overcome this ceiling and provide a 42% quota for the OBCs, based on the caste census conducted in November-December 2024 and findings of the Dedicated BC Commission, which analysed OBC political representation to justify the higher reservation percentage.
Constitutional expert and former central information commissioner Sridhar Acharya Madabhushi said the ordinance route chosen by the Telangana government had many legal and political ramifications. “The biggest hurdle is the Supreme Court judgement of 1992 in Indira Sawhney case which has fixed a ceiling of 50% on the total reservations, unless backed by extraordinary justification based on quantifiable data. As such, there is no extraordinary justification for the state government,” he said.
Secondly, Madabhushi said, two original bills seeking to provide 42% quota for OBCs – in education and employment; and local bodies – by including them in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution, were still pending with the Centre for Presidential assent. “So, there are doubts about the legality of using an ordinance to bypass pending Constitutional processes,” he said.
The Constitutional expert added that as per Article 213(1)(a) of the Constitution, the governor cannot promulgate an ordinance on a subject requiring the President’s prior sanction. “Here, the subject overlaps with pending Bills awaiting Presidential assent, making the ordinance potentially unconstitutional,” he said.
Thirdly, enhancing the reservations by amending the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution is not a hard and fast rule. “The Supreme Court can review it if it wants,” Madabhushi said.
