The Telangana High Court Saturday evening heard a writ petition challenging the government order (GO MS no 9 issued on September 26, 2025) that allowed 42 per cent reservation for the Backward Classes in local bodies.
The division bench of Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili and Justice B Vijaysen Reddy was dealing with a House motion that questioned the breach of the 50 per cent ceiling in reservations mandated by Supreme Court judgments. After hearing the petitioners and the Advocate General, who appeared for the state, the bench noted that the matter be posted on October 8.
“It is made clear that even if the election notification is issued for conduct of local body elections, the cause in the present writ petition survives and it has to be heard on merits,” the bench stated.
A single bench of the high court had earlier, on September 24, dismissed a writ petition challenging the state government’s decision to allocate 42 per cent reservation to the Backward Classes (BCs) in the upcoming local body elections. Justice K Lakshman, while dismissing the petition as “premature and not maintainable”, stated that the petitioners relied solely on newspaper reports and their petition was “based on apprehensions”. Appearing for the petitioners, Senior Counsel B Mayur Reddy stated that the GO was issued on the evening of September 26 after the high court closed for Dussehra vacation.
Mayur Reddy argued that vertical reservations of Backward Classes had been increased from 25 per cent to 42 per cent, while maintaining the reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes at 15 per cent and 10 per cent, respectively. Adding that the ceiling of 50 per cent in reservation should not be breached under any circumstances, he contended that the state government has increased the reservation by 17 per cent beyond the ceiling. He further argued that the bill amending section 285A of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018, which was passed in the state legislature on August 31, 2025, is pending for assent before the Governor and hence not enacted as a law. Section 285A deals with the reservation of seats and offices in Gram Panchayats, Mandal Praja Parishads and Zilla Praja Parishads.
The bench sought to know from the state how it could issue a GO when the bill is pending for assent before the Governor. Advocate General A Sudarshan Reddy then said that the state’s legislative competence is not in question and the legislation was unanimously passed by the legislature. “When there is legislative competence, a mere pendency does not debar the state to act in pursuance of its legislation,” he said. He contended that a welfare legislation of the state cannot be interfered with in the way of a House motion and sought the matter to be heard by a regular bench after the reopening of the Court post-Dussehra vacation.
The bench then observed that “heavens are not going to fall if the elections are not conducted before September 30… we are not in the way of conducting elections. Do it as per law.” Justice T Madhavi Devi’s judgment dated June 25, 2025, had directed the state government and the State Election Commission to hold gram panchayat elections and declare the results before September 30, 2025.
Story continues below this ad
The bench directed the state to file an extension application to seek permission to conduct the election at a later date, maybe in November. This way, the bench observed, the state could wait for completion of three months since the bill was sent to the Governor for his assent, and enact the law as per the latest Supreme Court judgment. The AG was then asked by the bench to seek instructions in the next 15 minutes. The AG reported back that he was unable to get instructions and asked if elections could be conducted in a week before the Court reopens after the vacation. He argued that once an election notification is issued, it would take 45 days to conduct elections.
The bench agreed with the AG and said, “Once election notification is issued, you cannot challenge it. But here this writ petition is filed before the notification. So nothing will happen,” and then posted the matter for hearing post re-opening on October 8. “It is made clear that even if the election notification is issued for conduct of local body elections, the cause in the present writ petition survives and it has to be heard on merits,” the bench stated.
