Telangana's 42% OBC Quota Halted: High Court Cites Breach of 50% Ceiling and Triple Test

Hyderabad, Telangana – In a significant judicial intervention with far-reaching political and administrative consequences, the High Court for the State of Telangana has issued an interim stay on the state government's ambitious policy to implement a 42% reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in upcoming local body elections. The decision, delivered on October 9, 2025, by a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice GM Mohiuddin, strikes at the heart of a policy that would have pushed total reservations to a contentious 67%, well beyond the judicially mandated 50% ceiling.

The court's order temporarily halts the operation of three crucial Government Orders (G.O.Ms.Nos. 9, 41, and 42) issued on September 26, 2025. The ruling found, on a prima facie basis, that the government's move not only violated the Supreme Court's established cap on reservations but also fundamentally failed to comply with the mandatory "triple test" prerequisite for instituting such quotas in local self-government.

Background: A Controversial Executive Fiat

The legal battle was precipitated by the Telangana government's swift executive action just weeks ahead of planned local body polls. On September 26, 2025, the Backward Classes Welfare Department issued G.O.Ms.No.9, increasing the reservation for BCs in both rural and urban local bodies to 42%. This was immediately followed by two consequential G.O.s (Nos. 41 and 42) detailing the implementation procedures for elections to Mandal Praja Parishads, Zilla Praja Parishads, and Gram Panchayats under the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018.

Acting on these orders, the Telangana State Election Commission (SEC) promptly issued an election notification on September 29. The aggregate reservation, combining the new 42% OBC quota with existing reservations for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs), stood at 67%. This move immediately triggered a flurry of legal challenges, with ten separate writ petitions being filed by various individuals and groups.

Petitioners' Arguments: A "Blatantly Unconstitutional" Move

During marathon hearings, counsel for the petitioners mounted a multi-pronged attack on the government's reservation policy, arguing it was constitutionally infirm and procedurally flawed.

Leading the charge, Senior Counsel K. Vivek Reddy, representing petitioners Buttemgari Madhava Reddy and another, contended that the G.O.s were ultra vires both the Constitution and the parent Panchayat Raj Act. He argued that the power to provide for reservations under Articles 243D(6) and 243T(6) of the Constitution is vested in the legislature, not the executive. "The G.O. is ultra vires the Panchayat Raj Act itself," Reddy submitted, emphasizing that such a significant policy shift could not be enacted through an executive order.

A central pillar of the petitioners' case was the state's alleged circumvention of the Supreme Court's triple test, first laid down in K. Krishna Murthy v. Union of India (2010) and rigorously reaffirmed in Vikas Kishanrao Gawali v. State of Maharashtra (2021) . This three-pronged test requires the state to: 1. Establish a dedicated commission to conduct a contemporaneous, rigorous empirical inquiry into the nature and implications of backwardness in local bodies. 2. Specify the proportion of reservation required for local bodies in light of the commission's recommendations. 3. Ensure that the total reservation for SCs, STs, and OBCs combined does not exceed 50% of the total seats.

"The triple test... was completely bypassed," Reddy argued, asserting that breaching the 50% cap is impermissible except in rare, constitutionally sanctioned circumstances for tribal areas, which was not the case here.

Further scrutiny was directed at the One-Man Commission Report, which the state claimed formed the empirical basis for its decision. Senior Counsel B. Mayur Reddy highlighted its lack of transparency, noting, "Without publishing the report and inviting objections, the government cannot legally fix such quotas." Petitioners argued this opacity prevented any meaningful public or judicial review of the data and methodology used to justify the 42% figure.

The State's Defence: Social Realities and Legislative Backing

Defending the government's position, Advocate General A. Sudershan Reddy and Senior Advocate Dr. A.M. Singhvi presented a robust counter-argument. They maintained that the quota was grounded in solid empirical data from the 2024–25 Socio-Economic, Educational, and Employment Census, which allegedly found that BCs constitute 56.33% of Telangana's population.

Dr. Singhvi advanced a crucial legal argument, contending that the 50% ceiling is not an inviolable rule. "There is no constitutional prohibition against exceeding the 50% mark," he argued. "The ceiling is flexible and depends on social realities."

The state also claimed legislative sanction for its actions. Dr. Singhvi pointed to the Telangana Backward Classes Reservation Bill, 2025, which provides for the same quota and was unanimously passed by the Assembly. He argued that by operation of law, the Bill was deemed to have been assented to by the Governor, thereby lending legislative weight to the executive G.O.s.

High Court's Prima Facie Findings and Interim Order

After carefully weighing the competing submissions, the Division Bench found compelling merit in the petitioners' arguments. The court's primary observation was the state's manifest failure to adhere to the constitutional and judicial frameworks governing reservations.

"The respondents have breached the ceiling of 50% and failed to adhere to the criteria mandated by the Supreme Court," the bench remarked in its order. It unequivocally stated that the combined reservation for SCs, STs, and OBCs in local bodies could not exceed the 50% limit. The court held that compliance with the triple test and the 50% ceiling were "non-negotiable constitutional requirements."

The bench also addressed the state's attempt to invoke Article 243-O, which bars courts from interfering in electoral matters once the process has begun. The court astutely clarified that its order was not a stay on the elections themselves but on the impugned G.O.s that formed the unconstitutional basis for them. "The process of conducting elections is not stayed," the bench clarified. "However, the G.O.Ms.Nos.9, 41, and 42 dated 26.09.2025 are hereby stayed till final disposal."

To ensure the electoral process could continue without being entirely derailed, the court directed the State Election Commission to proceed by re-notifying the seats earmarked under the excess quota as open category seats. This directive aligns with the Supreme Court's guidance in similar circumstances, as laid down in Rahul Ramesh Wagh v. State of Maharashtra (2022) .

The state has been granted four weeks to file its counter-affidavit, with the petitioners given two weeks thereafter for a rejoinder. The matter is scheduled for its next hearing on December 3, 2025, setting the stage for a decisive legal showdown. The interim order represents a significant setback for the government and reaffirms the judiciary's role as a guardian of constitutional limits on executive and legislative power, particularly in the sensitive domain of reservation policy.