In a significant interim order that could reshape Telangana's local body elections, the High Court for the State of Telangana on October 9, 2025, stayed the operation of the government's G.O.Ms.Nos.9, 41, and 42- which had granted 42% reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in local bodies. The bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh(AKrS, J) and Justice GM Mohiuddin ruled that the move breaches the 50% reservation ceiling and violates the Supreme Court's "triple test" requirement for such quotas.
The decision came after marathon hearings of ten writ petitions filed by various individuals and groups challenging the Telangana government’s September 26 orders.
Background
On September 26, 2025, the Telangana government issued G.O.Ms.No.9 through the Backward Classes Welfare Department, providing 42% reservation to BCs in rural and urban local bodies. This was followed by G.O.Ms.Nos.41 and 42, laying down the procedure for implementing the quota in Panchayat Raj and municipal elections.
Soon after, the Telangana State Election Commission (SEC) issued a notification on September 29, announcing the election schedule for Mandal and Zilla Praja Parishads based on the new quota.
The petitioners, represented by senior counsels K. Vivek Reddy, B. Mayur Reddy, and J. Prabhakar, argued that the 42% reservation, when combined with existing SC and ST quotas, raised total reservations to 67%, violating the constitutional limit of 50%.
Petitioners Arguments
Counsel for the petitioners called the move "blatantly unconstitutional", contending that only the legislature, not the executive, has the authority to make reservations under Articles 243D(6) and 243T(6) of the Constitution.
"The G.O. is ultra vires the Panchayat Raj Act itself," senior advocate K. Vivek Reddy argued, adding that the triple test-mandating a dedicated commission, empirical data, and adherence to the 50% cap-was "completely bypassed."
Reddy relied on Supreme Court judgments in K. Krishna Murthy v. Union of India (2010) and Vikas Kishanrao Gawali v. State of Maharashtra (2021), which explicitly held that breaching the 50% cap is impermissible except in exceptional tribal contexts.
Petitioners further alleged that the One-Man Commission Report, on which the government relied, was "unpublished and lacked transparency." Senior counsel B. Mayur Reddy noted, "Without publishing the report and inviting objections, the government cannot legally fix such quotas."
Others, like Ms. Purnima Kamble, went further, accusing the Election Commission of misrepresenting the law, saying the notification falsely claimed the G.O. was an amendment to the Panchayat Raj Act.
State's Defence
Defending the decision, Advocate General A. Sudershan Reddy and Senior Advocate Dr. A.M. Singhvi argued that the quota was based on empirical data collected through the 2024–25 Socio-Economic, Educational, and Employment Census, which found BCs constitute 56.33% of Telangana's population.
Dr. Singhvi contended, "There is no constitutional prohibition against exceeding the 50% mark. The ceiling is flexible and depends on social realities." He pointed out that the Telangana Backward Classes Reservation Bill, 2025, which grants the same quota, was unanimously passed by the Assembly and, by operation of law, deemed assented by the Governor.
The State maintained that the decision had legislative backing and was taken "after wide consensus and due deliberation."
Court's Observations
After examining the rival submissions and multiple Supreme Court rulings, the bench observed that the Telangana Government had failed to comply with the triple test laid down in Vikas Kishanrao Gawali (2021).
"The respondents have breached the ceiling of 50% and failed to adhere to the criteria mandated by the Supreme Court," the court remarked. The bench noted that the reservation for OBCs in local bodies cannot exceed 50% when combined with those for SCs and STs.
Rejecting the State's argument on the bar under Article 243-O (which restricts interference during election processes), the court clarified that it was not halting elections, but staying the impugned G.O.s that increased the quota.
"The process of conducting elections is not stayed," the bench said. "However, the G.O.Ms.Nos.9, 41, and 42 dated 26.09.2025 are hereby stayed till final disposal."
The court directed the State Election Commission to notify the proportionate seats as open category seats and continue with the elections "in line with the Supreme Court’s guidance in Rahul Ramesh Wagh v. State of Maharashtra (2022)."
Decision
Concluding the interim order, the High Court stayed the implementation of the Telangana government’s 42% OBC reservation policy in local body elections. The bench emphasized that compliance with the Supreme Court’s triple test and the 50% ceiling were "non-negotiable constitutional requirements."
It granted the State four weeks to file its counter affidavit, with two weeks thereafter for the petitioners to respond, and listed the case for further hearing on December 3, 2025.
The matter, involving sensitive questions of social justice and constitutional balance, now heads for an intense final hearing that will decide whether Telangana’s ambitious political reservation policy can stand judicial scrutiny.
Case Title: Buttemgari Madhava Reddy and Another v. State of Telangana & Others