The Telangana High Court on Thursday declined to stay Telangana government’s recent ordinance tapering reservations for Backward Classes (BCs) from 34% to 23% in election to gram panchayats.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan and Justice A. Rajasheker Reddy, however, admitted the writ petitions seeking to declare the Ordinance arbitrary and unconstitutional. Tagging all other related writ petitions together, the Bench posted further hearing on the matter after Sankranthi vacation. Presenting arguments for Telangana State BC Mahajana Samithy and Telangana BC Welfare Association, lawyer V. Ramchander Goud presented to the Bench that the impugned Ordinance was in violation of the Full Bench judgement of Andhra Pradesh High Court in G. Satyanarayana Reddy vs State of AP case.
Argument
The ordinance was also in contradiction with the directions of the AP HC’s Division Bench in Nimmakka Jayaraj vs AP government case, he argued. Citing Article 243-D (6) of the Constitution, Mr. Ramchander contended that nothing should prevent Legislature from creating reservations in panchayats for BCs. The CJ observed that there was no constitutional eligibility for BC reservations but it was constitutional permissibility.
Additional Advocate General J. Ramchander Rao presented to the Bench that Telangana government left no stone unturned to ensure 34% of reservations to BCs in gram panchayats but could not do so in the light of various directions given by the courts.
The petitioners’ lawyer contended that Telangana government failed to comply with the procedures relating to inviting objections from people over changes in the reservations for BCs. However, the AAG told the Bench that all such methods were duly followed before issuing the Ordinance.
‘Not applicable’
The CJ observed that the Supreme Court had made it clear that total reservations have to be maintained in such a way that they don’t exceed 50%. A lawyer representing another petitioner drew the Bench’s attention to the remarks made by the apex court that the cap on reservations can be applied to public employment and education but was not compulsory for local bodies.
