Can 42% BC quota in local bodies survive without Governor consent to amendment bill?: HC

The Telangana High Court on Saturday, which heard a writ petition filed by way of House motion challenging 42% reservations to Backward Classes in the ensuing local bodies’ elections, adjourned the matter to October 8. A Bench of Justices B. Vijaysen Reddy and Abhinand Kumar Shavili, which heard contentions of the government and the petitioners, made it clear that the matter would be adjudicated even if the notification to conduct elections to the local bodies was issued before October 8. This was clarified by the Bench since the counsels of the petitioners said the government might argue that ‘petitions filed after issuing notification’ cannot survive. “Since this writ petition was issued before the notification was issued, the cause survives and the matter would be heard,” the Bench said. Earlier, the counsels for the petitioners challenged the validity of the GO Ms. no 9 issued on Friday, providing 42% reservation to BCs in local bodies. This was against the Supreme Court verdict in the Indra Sawhney case which capped the vertical reservations to 50%. With the Telangana government enhancing reservations to BCs from 25% to 42% the total reservations (including the reservations of 15% to SCs and 10% to STs), the total reservations reached 67%. This amounts to breaching the 50% cap fixed by the apex court, the counsel said. The executive is going against the legislation not by one or two per cent - but by 17%, the lawyer said. Advocate General A. Sudarshan Reddy informed the Bench that government had already amended Section 285-A of the Panchayat Raj Act which fixed the reservations to specific numbers. However, the petitioner’s counsel said the Governor had not yet given consent to the two Bills passed by the Telangana Assembly which amended the section. “When the Governor had not given consent to the Bill, can the government come out with a GO that provides enhancement of reservations based on the Bill,” the Bench sought to know from the AG. But the ‘legislative competence’ of the Assembly to make the law cannot be questioned, the AG replied. Explaining that the Bill was pending before the Governor, the AG added that the SC had recently ruled that the Bills were deemed to be passed if the consent was not given in a month in some cases, and three months in other matters. But even that one month period was not completed in the case of the Bill that was sent to Governor amending Section 285-A of PR Act, the petitioner’s advocate said. While the arguments were in progress, the Bench asked the AG to secure instructions from government if it can defer the elections for a few days so as to get a clarity on the Governor’s consent on the matter. The AG returned to the Bench stating that he could not get the government’s stand on the matter, and requested the hearing to be taken up on Monday or any other day. There was no urgency to hear a House Motion, he added. Finally, the Bench adjourned the hearing to October 8.