New Delhi, October 16 (Udaipur Kiran): The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed the Telangana government’s plea challenging the High Court’s interim order that stayed the implementation of 42% reservation for Backward Classes (BCs) in local body elections.
A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta clarified that the Telangana High Court should decide the main case on its merits without being influenced by the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the State’s Special Leave Petition (SLP).
During the hearing, Justice Nath questioned Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the State, on why the reservation proposal was not introduced before the election notification. Singhvi replied that the Governor had delayed granting assent to the Bill. He added that the Bill had become law based on “deemed assent,” in line with the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Tamil Nadu Governor case.
Justice Nath then asked how a Bill could be challenged. Singhvi responded that since the Bill had now become an Act and was being implemented based on deemed assent, the High Court’s stay was unjustified.
Representing the respondents, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan argued that the State’s move violated the 50% ceiling on reservations set by the Supreme Court. He cited the K. Krishna Murthy (Dr.) & Ors. v. Union of India and Vikas Kishanrao Gawali judgments, which mandate fulfilling three “triple tests” before granting reservations in local self-government institutions. He pointed out that, earlier, Telangana had maintained 15%, 10%, and 25% reservations for SCs, STs, and OBCs respectively within the 50% cap.
Sankaranarayanan added that the apex court had earlier ruled in similar cases from Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh that reservation in local body polls cannot exceed 50%. Another counsel for the respondents submitted that the State could not unilaterally act on “deemed assent” without seeking a court direction if the Governor delayed approval.
Dr. Singhvi countered that the 50% ceiling was not an “inflexible rule,” stating that the State had completed extensive door-to-door socio-economic surveys over a year to justify the enhanced quota. However, the bench was not convinced by his arguments.
Justice Mehta reminded that the Gawali judgment did not permit exceeding the 50% limit, while Singhvi maintained that empirical data allowed exceptions. Despite this, the Supreme Court found no merit in the State’s plea and dismissed it.
Bhupendra Singh Chundawat is a seasoned technology journalist with over 22 years of experience in the media industry. He specializes in covering the global technology landscape, with a deep focus on manufacturing trends and the geopolitical impact on tech companies. Currently serving as the Editor at Udaipur Kiran, his insights are shaped by decades of hands-on reporting and editorial leadership in the fast-evolving world of technology.