HC declines to stay GO 46 on panchayat poll reservations

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court division bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Ghouse Meera Mohiuddin on Friday refused to stay GO 46, dated November 22, which lays down comprehensive guidelines for reservations in the upcoming panchayat elections.

The court also declined to strike down Section 285-A of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018, to the extent it relates to BC reservations. With the order, the bench effectively allowed the government to proceed with the election process without interruption.

While refusing the plea to suspend the GO, the CJ observed that “the process mandated by the constitutional provision elections should not be stopped. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that elections should not be halted.”

Sudarshan Malugari, appearing for petitioners Madiwala Machadeva Rajakula Sangam represented by its general secretary S Laxmiah of Vikarabad district, and six others, pressed for a direction to State to furnish a copy of the BC Commission report, based on which the BC reservations were determined.

The bench declined to issue such a direction at this stage, noting that the State was gearing up to conduct the elections. However, the CJ remarked that once the government files its counter affidavit along with all relevant materials, the court “may ask the government to produce the BC commission report.” The bench added that it presumes the State will place the report before the court.

The petitioners contended that the government had earlier furnished only three pages the first and last of the BC commission report before the Supreme Court in connection with the issue of providing 42% BC reservations. They argued that BC communities have a right to know the empirical basis on which the reservations are being allotted.

The petition (36355/2025) challenges the constitutional validity of Section 285-A on the ground that it fails to recognise categorisation of BCs into A, B, C, and D groups for rural local body elections.

The petitioners question the non-disclosure of the full report of the Dedicated Commission dated November 20, which purportedly contains the empirical data supporting the breservation percentages. They sought quashing of Section 285-A (insofar as it pertains to BC reservations) and of GO 46 for not adhering to BC categorisation norms and for withholding the complete commission report.

The bench adjourned the case for eight weeks, directing the government to file its counter by the next date of hearing.

Court questions authenticity of BC Commission report in writ against GO 46

• Case adjourned for three weeks; State directed to file counter-affidavits

The HC expressed strong dissatisfaction over the “BC commission report” in a writ challenging GO 46 relating to reservation guidelines for the upcoming panchayat elections.

After the lunch recess, the government pleader(panchayat raj) produced the report before the single bench of Justice T. Madhavi Devi. On examining it, she noted that the document appeared to be merely “data in tabular form” and not an official report. She pointed out that it carried no date, no covering letter; questioned whether it was indeed the latest BC commission r The government pleader did not provide a clear response.

The court heard the writ filed by advocate G Ramesh Goud, seeking suspension of GO 46, and a direction to the government to conduct the panchayat elections strictly as per reservation norms under the Panchayat Raj Act, and production of the BC commission report for scrutiny.

Appearing for the State Election Commission, senior counsel Vidya Sagar informed the court that the poll notification had already been issued and that substantial arrangements for the elections are in place. He submitted that, in this context, judicial intervention should be exercised cautiously and kept to a minimum.

After hearing submissions from the State and the Election Commission, Justice Madhavi Devi adjourned the case for three weeks, directing both the government and the SEC to file counter- affidavits.

Endowments Commissioner appears in HC for not producing temple land records

• Court dispenses with further appearance; gives one week to furnish records

The HC expressed strong displeasure over the delay by the Endowments department in producing original land records pertaining to Sri Seetha Rama Chandra Swamy Temple at Devarayamjal village in Shameerpet mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri district.

The single bench of Justice Jukanti Anil Kumar, before whom the matter came up, noted that despite repeated orders, Commissioner of Endowments S Venkata Rao, had not furnished the land documents. Although a set of documents was produced during the hearing, the judge, after perusing them, observed that they were not originals that had been specifically sought by the court.

The court is hearing a batch of 54 writs filed by the original owners of the temple land, who claim long-standing possession for the past 30–40 years. In the absence of crucial land records — including survey numbers, Sethwar, pahanis, and other documents the adjudication of the petitions has become difficult, the judge noted.