With the Telangana High Court mandating the government to hold the local body elections by 30 September 2025, the Congress is trying to be seen as the sole messiah for the BCs.
Published Jul 23, 2025 | 8:00 AM ⚊ Updated Jul 23, 2025 | 8:00 AM
File photo of N Ramachander Rao. (X)
Synopsis: Telangana BJP President N Ramchander Rao opposed the inclusion of the BC reservation bills in the IX Schedule of the Indian Constitution since the proposed 42 percent reservation would take the total reservations in the state to 70 percent. He also objected to the inclusion of a 10 percent quota for Muslim OBCs within the 42 percent BC reservation.
The issue of 42 percent reservations for Backward Classes (BCs) in Telangana has sparked a heated debate with Telangana BJP President N Ramchander Rao being right in its middle.
On Monday, 21 July, Rao unequivocally opposed the inclusion of the BC reservation bills in the IX Schedule of the Indian Constitution. He cited legal and constitutional hurdles, particularly the Supreme Court’s 50 percent cap on reservations and its rulings against religion-based quotas.
The Telangana Legislative Assembly had, on 17 March 2025, unanimously passed two bills for increasing BC reservations to 42 percent in education, employment, and local body elections: The Telangana Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions and Appointments or Posts in Services under the State) Bill 2025 and the Telangana Backward Classes (Reservation of Seats in Rural and Urban Local Bodies) Bill 2025.
The bills were drafted based on a caste survey which the state government had commissioned. The survey had revealed that the BCs constituted 56.33 percent of Telangana’s population. It included 10 percent BC Muslims.
The proposed 42 percent reservation would take the total reservations in the state to 70 percent. This exceeds the Supreme Court’s 50 percent reservation cap, necessitating its inclusion in the IX Schedule for its operationalisation, which will shield it from judicial scrutiny.
The bills, which were sent to the Union government, require approval of the Parliament and Presidential assent for inclusion in the IXth Schedule. However, Rao asserted that such inclusion is “impossible” due to legal constraints, which triggered an animated discussion with accusations of Congress’ betrayal of the people’s trust and political posturing to rally the BCs, eyeing electoral benefit and the BJP’s double-speak.
Rao, who himself is a seasoned lawyer, argued that the Congress government’s push for 42 percent BC reservations does not stand legal scrutiny, and the bills had procedural flaws.
He came down on the state government for introducing the bill without adequate debate on Section 285 of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, which he claims is necessary to implement the increased quota.
He also has pointed to the Supreme Court’s 1992 ruling capping reservations at 50 percent and its stance against religion-based reservations. He objected to the inclusion of a 10 percent quota for Muslim OBCs within the 42 percent BC reservation.
He labelled this as “vote-bank politics” and “anti-BC,” arguing that it dilutes the benefits intended for other BCs.
He demanded that Congress apologise for betraying the BC community by pushing a bill he believes is legally untenable. He wondered whether the state government had vetted the bill before it was introduced in the Assembly. He was critical of Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy for using the issue for political gain rather than a genuine intent to help the BCs.
Rao also has dared Congress to implement the 42 percent quota using its constitutional powers under Article 243D(6), which allows states to make provisions for reservations in local bodies.
He said he doubted whether the state government would do it as it was not genuinely interested in the BCs. He felt that legal experts should have been consulted before pushing the bills in the Assembly.
The BRS was quick to react to Rao’s ruling out the possibility of inclusion of the bills in the IX Schedule. BC leader and BRS MLC Dasoju Sravan Kumar wrote on X on Monday that denial of the most deprived BCs of their due is not just hypocrisy, it is undemocratic, inhuman, and deliberate injustice.
“When Tamil Nadu’s government could prevail upon the then Government of India to include 69 percent reservations in the Ninth Schedule, why can’t the present Telangana government or Telangana BJP fight with the same resolve to ensure just 42 percent for the most deprived BCs? Isn’t justice for OBCs worth that constitutional effort and fight with the Government of India? Telangana BJP president N Ramchander Rao’s opposition is not about law, it is about lack of empathy and lack of commitment for the empowerment of the BCs,” he said.
Needless to say, the 42 percent BC reservation issue faces significant legal hurdles.
To exceed the Supreme Court’s 50 percent cap, set via the 1992 Indra Sawhney case, the states have to come up with compelling justification for inclusion in the IXth Schedule to insulate it from judicial scrutiny.
The inclusion of a 10 percent Muslim quota within the BC reservation further complicates the issue as courts have consistently ruled against religion-based reservations.
The Congress has been bringing pressure on the BJP to have the bills included in the IXth Schedule of the Constitution. The party had said that it fulfilled its promise, and now the ball was in the BJP’s court. The party wondered whether the delay to have the bills included in the IXth Schedule is reflective of the saffron party’s intent to deny social justice for the BCs.
Revanth Reddy had termed the two bills as historic steps towards ensuring social justice and declared the day the bills were passed as Social Justice Day. He also called upon the saffron party to prove its commitment to the welfare of the BCs by including them in the IXth Schedule.
BRS MLC K Kavitha, who is championing the cause of the BCs of late, also wrote to the BJP president recently to persuade the saffron party leadership at Delhi to have the bills included in the Ninth Schedule.
Rao’s unambiguous stand is bound to deepen the political divide in the state. By framing the Congress’s approach as deceptive and legally flawed, he has positioned the BJP as a defender of the Constitution, while simultaneously appealing to BC voters with empathetic words that they needed all the support.
His opposition to the Muslim quota within the BC reservation has communal overtones, which conforms with the wider policy of the BJP’s politics of polarisation.
With the Telangana High Court mandating the government to hold the local body elections by 30 September 2025, the Congress is trying to be seen as the sole messiah for the BCs.
It recently came out with an ordinance to facilitate the creation of 42 percent reservations for BCs by amending the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018. The ordinance, which is yet to get the Governor’s assent, seems to be a fail-safe tactic as it knows that the bills will not be included in the IXth schedule.
It is obvious that the Congress will enter the political bullring with trenchant criticism of the BJP for the delay in obtaining Presidential assent.
The BRS, meanwhile, is attempting to regain political relevance by championing the BC cause. It is getting ready with a two-pronged attack — one against the Union government for not including the bills in the IX Schedule, and the state for not being sincere in bringing pressure on the Union government.
As the deadline for local body elections looms, the reservation issue is likely to dominate Telangana’s political landscape.
The elections also will test Rao’s leadership as he balances the BJP’s ideological opposition to religion-based quotas with its electoral ambitions in a state where BCs form a significant vote bank.
(Edited by Muhammed Fazil.)
