The ruling comes amid continuing debate over reservation limits in local governance, particularly in the context of the 50% ceiling on total quotas established in earlier Supreme Court judgements.
Published Oct 16, 2025 | 2:01 PM ⚊ Updated Oct 16, 2025 | 5:29 PM
Telangana's arguments for enhanced reservation did not convince the Supreme Court.
Synopsis: The ruling comes amid continuing debate over reservation limits in local governance, particularly in the context of the 50% ceiling on total quotas established in earlier Supreme Court judgements. Telangana’s decision to enhance BC reservations had pushed the cumulative quota beyond this threshold, prompting legal challenges on constitutional grounds.
In a major setback for the Telangana government, the Supreme Court on Thursday, 16 October, dismissed the state’s Special Leave Petition (SLP) seeking a stay on a Telangana High Court’s order suspending the implementation of 42% reservation for the Backward Classes (BCs) in local body elections.
A Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta observed that the high court should be allowed to decide the case on its merits, clarifying that the dismissal of the SLP would not prejudice or influence the ongoing proceedings before it.
The ruling comes amid continuing debate over reservation limits in local governance, particularly in the context of the 50% ceiling on total quotas established in earlier Supreme Court judgements. Telangana’s decision to enhance BC reservations had pushed the cumulative quota beyond this threshold, prompting legal challenges on constitutional grounds.
It now remains to be seen if the A Revanth Reddy government will apply old reservation norms or fight the legal battle in the high court.
The old reservation ratio is:
If the proposed reservations are applied, the total reservations will go up to 67%, breaching the 50 percent cap.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the Telangana government, argued that the state had satisfied all necessary prerequisites for implementing the enhanced quota. He said a door-to-door socio-economic household survey had been conducted to collect empirical data, fulfilling the “triple test” required for OBC reservations in local bodies.
Singhvi further contended that the 50% ceiling was not an absolute limit, asserting that it could be breached with adequate empirical justification, as permitted by interpretations in prior Supreme Court rulings.
Addressing questions about the legislative process, Singhvi said the Bill enhancing the BC quota had been pending before the governor. Still, the Bill became a law through “deemed assent”, citing delays in approval.
He drew parallels with the Tamil Nadu governor case, where the Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to grant deemed assent to several pending Bills. “The Bill became an Act and has been acted upon based on deemed assent,” Singhvi told the Bench, responding to a query from Justice Nath.
On the other hand, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing the respondents, argued that the Government Order (GO) violated the 50% cap on total reservations. He cited landmark rulings in K. Krishna Murthy vs. Union of India (2010) and Vikas Kishan Rao Gawali vs. State of Maharashtra (2021). The rulings stipulated the triple test for OBC reservations.
The test comprises setting up a dedicated commission to conduct an empirical study on backwardness, fixing reservation proportions based on that data, and ensuring the total quota—including SC and ST reservations—does not exceed 50%.
Sankaranarayanan noted that Telangana already had reservations of 15% for Scheduled Castes, 10% for Scheduled Tribes, and 25% for BCs, together amounting to 50%. Raising BC reservations to 42% would push the total to 67%, clearly breaching the constitutional ceiling.
Another counsel for the respondents argued that the state could not act unilaterally on “deemed assent” and should instead have sought judicial intervention by filing a writ of mandamus if the Governor had withheld approval.
Justice Mehta, meanwhile, questioned whether the Gawali judgement allowed any flexibility in crossing the 50% mark. Although Singhvi maintained that empirical data provided such scope, the Bench remained unconvinced and dismissed the petition.
The controversy traces back to the Telangana government’s decision to expand BC reservations in gram panchayats, zilla parishads, and urban local bodies. In September 2025, the state issued GO No. 9, increasing the BC quota from 25% to 42%, following recommendations from the Backward Classes Commission.
The move was preceded by an ordinance and a subsequent Bill, which the government claims became law through deemed assent due to the governor’s inaction.
The Congress-led government presented the enhanced quota as a social justice initiative, with Chief Minister Revanth Reddy emphasising the need for greater representation for BCs, who constitute nearly 50% of Telangana’s population, according to socio-economic surveys.
The government cited a comprehensive 2024–25 survey as the empirical foundation for the decision.
However, the policy soon faced multiple legal challenges. Petitioners, including individuals and organisations, approached the Telangana High Court, arguing that the GO violated constitutional principles and Supreme Court precedents.
On 9 October 2025, a division bench of the high court headed by Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh stayed the implementation of GO No. 9, citing non-compliance with the triple test and breach of the 50% ceiling. It directed the state to treat the additional 17% (beyond the existing 25%) as general seats and to conduct local body elections under the existing Panchayat Raj Act.
Following the stay, the Telangana State Election Commission suspended the ongoing poll process, forcing the government to move the Supreme Court with an urgent SLP on 14 October 2025.
The issue of “deemed assent” was central to Telangana’s argument in the Supreme Court. The state relied on the Supreme Court’s April 2025 ruling in the State of Tamil Nadu vs. Governor of Tamil Nadu, which held that governors cannot indefinitely withhold assent and, in exceptional cases, deemed assent can be applied under Article 142.
Telangana invoked this precedent to justify proceeding with its reservation policy despite the governor’s delay.
(Edited by Majnu Babu).
