In Telangana, the issue of Backward Class (BC) reservations in local bodies has stirred significant controversy, with legal guidelines and Supreme Court directives being sidelined. Despite constitutional provisions for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs), BC reservations lack a robust constitutional and legal framework.
Historically, state governments have implemented BC reservations arbitrarily under Articles 243-D(6) and 243-T(6). However, the Supreme Court, in a landmark 2010 verdict, established clear directives for their implementation, which are now being neglected.
In the 2010 K. Krishnamurthy case, the Supreme Court directed the formation of a dedicated commission under Article 340 to scientifically study and recommend political reservations for OBCs at the village level. These recommendations must be based on an independent assessment of political backwardness and adhere to the 50% reservation cap.
The judgment emphasized a systematic approach, famously known as the Triple Test, and mandated that no BC reservations be provided without the commission’s recommendations. Recently, in the Vikas Rao Gawali case, the Supreme Court reiterated that all states must comply with these guidelines. Following this, the Telangana High Court also directed the state government to adhere to these principles.
In response, the Telangana government constituted a dedicated commission headed by Busani Venkateswara Rao. However, the commission has been largely inactive, merely accepting petitions from caste associations and individuals without conducting any ground-level surveys. Moreover, despite setting a one-month deadline for the commission’s report, the government has neither allocated funds nor appointed staff to support its functioning.
Adding to the chaos, the Telangana State BC Commission, which traditionally oversees social and economic conditions and monitors 27% reservations in education and employment as per the Mandal Commission’s recommendations, has overstepped its jurisdiction. The government issued GO 47, entrusting the BC Commission with tasks meant for the dedicated commission. This move directly contradicts Supreme Court rulings, which invalidate BC Commission reports on political reservations.
The BC Commission has been conducting open hearings across districts, receiving representations from individuals and caste associations. Despite High Court orders to halt these activities, the commission has announced plans to submit a report, raising questions about its validity and compliance with judicial directives.
The Planning Department, acting independently and without coordination with the BC Commission or the dedicated commission, is conducting a statewide house-to-house survey. This survey goes beyond BC reservations, gathering socioeconomic data on the entire population. Critics argue that this unstructured approach undermines the core objective of stabilizing BC reservations and risks further delays.
The Revanth Reddy-led state government’s ad hoc approach has drawn sharp criticism. Despite clear orders from the High Court in September to finalize BC reservations and submit a report by December 9, the government delayed forming a dedicated commission.
Even after issuing guidelines, it failed to provide the necessary resources for the commission to function effectively. Meanwhile, documents and appeals from the dedicated commission remain stalled with the Finance Department.
Legal experts and BC associations have expressed concerns over the government’s neglect, warning that BC reservations, currently at 42%, are at risk of being diluted or eliminated altogether. The lack of coordination and adherence to legal mandates threatens to render the existing reservation framework obsolete.