Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court on Thursday (October 16) dismissed the plea filed by the State of Telangana against the Telangana High Court's interim order staying the implementation of 42% reservation for Backward Classes in the local body polls.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta clarified that the High Court should decide the main matter on merits without being influenced by the dismissal of the State's Special Leave Petition.

At the outset, Justice Nath asked Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi why the reservation was not brought in before the elections were notified. Singhvi replied that the Governor had kept Bill pending without granting assent.

Singhvi stated that the Bill became a law based on "deemed assent" in terms of the Supreme Court's judgment in the Tamil Nadu Governor case. Without making any challenge to the law, a stay has been secured, he added.

"How do you challenge a Bill?" Justice Nath asked. Singhvi replied that the Bill has become an Act now, and has been acted upon on the basis of deemed assent.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, for the respondents, said that the challenge was made to the Government Order which resulted in the reservation going beyond 50% ceiling. He said that, as per the K. Krishna Murthy (Dr.) & Ors. v. Union of India and Vikas Kishanrao Gawali judgments, triple tests have to be fulfilled before giving reservations in local self-government institutions. Earlier, it was 15%, 10% and 25% respectively for SC, ST and OBCs within the 50% limit, he added. He pointed out that the Supreme Court has passed orders in the cases of Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh that reservation should not cross 50% for local body elections.

Another counsel for the respondent submitted that the State cannot unilaterally act on the basis of "deemed assent" for the Bill ,as the Tamil Nadu Governor judgment held that the State must seek a writ of mandamus from the Court if there is a delay on the part of the Governor in granting assent to the Bill.

In response, Singhvi said that the 50% limit was not an "inflexible rule". He claimed that the State satisfied the triple tests to enhance the reservation. Door-to-door household socio-economic surveys were done "painstakingly" for one year, he added.

"Based on these exercises, you have come up with the Ordinance and a Bill. That is yet to take a final shape, " Justice Nath said. Singhvi asserted that the law was in operation.

Justice Mehta pointed out that the judgment in Gawali did not allow the crossing of 50% limit. Singhvi said that Gawali held that 50% can be crossed if there was empirical data, and added that Telangana was the only State to have done the survey.

The bench was not persuaded by these arguments and proceeded to dismiss the petition.

"You may continue with your elections[without reservations]… dismissed," Justice Nath said.

Case : THE STATE OF TELANGANA Vs BUTTEMGARI MADHAVA REDDY | SLP(C) No. 29820-29836/2025