A.P. High Court sets aside 34% BC quota in local body polls, says it exceeds 50% overall ceiling

A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court led by Chief Justice Lisa Gill and comprising Justice Challa Gunaranjan on Thursday set aside G.O. Nos. 105 and 1065 through which the government provided 34% reservation to the Backward Classes (BCs) in Panchayat Raj Institutions (PRIs) and 33.33% quota in the Urban Local Bodies (ULBs), saying that they exceeded the 50% threshold laid down by the Supreme Court.

While striking down the impugned G.O.s, the court gave liberty to the government to revisit the issue and determine the percentage of reservation for BCs keeping in view the apex court judgment in Janhit Abhiyan Vs. Union of India after completing the exercise of data collection in compliance with the judgment in Vikas Kishanrao Gawali Vs. State of Maharashtra. 

The judges have expressed the opinion that the empirical data collected by the State through unified family survey cannot form the basis of declaration for reservation for the BCs. 

In the same vein, the court directed the State government and the State Election Commission (SEC) to expeditiously commence the process of holding elections to the PRI and ULBs preferably not later than six weeks from October 1, by observing that they are under a Constitutional mandate to hold timely elections and carry out the pre-election process as required in a timely fashion against the backdrop of the expiry of the tenure of representatives of PRIs and ULB on April 2, 2026 and March 17, 2026 respectively.

Continued operation of electoral rolls in existence on the qualifying date cannot be affected by the Special Intensive Revision and it cannot be the reason for postponement of the elections, the judges said. 

Chief Justice Gill and Justice Gunaranjan stated that there was no ground for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the State to carry out sub-classification of the BCs, noting that it is for the State to prove that the group / caste carved out from a larger group of Scheduled Castes/BCs is more disadvantageously placed than the rest in same group by considering the related issues. 

As far as the delimitation of Municipalities and Municipal Corporations is concerned, they said the Census Act of 1948 or Census Rules, 1990 do not prohibit the State from undertaking the process, therefore, freezing of boundaries of administrative units for Census does not bar the delimitation of wards within the Municipalities/ Municipal Corporations.