Telangana's BC quota dilemma: Will Governor approve ordinance amid legal hurdles?
The Supreme Court's precedent on reservation limit too casts a shadow over the issue, regardless of the supporting empirical data and the Dedicated Commission's recommendations to enhance reservations.
The apprehension of the government comes in the wake of Jishnu Dev Varma sending two Bills — the Telangana Backward Classes (Reservation of Seats in Rural and Urban Local Bodies) Bill 2025, and the Telangana Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes, and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions and of Appointments or Posts in the Services Under the State) Bill, 2025 which were passed in the State Legislature to enhance BC reservations to 42% — to President Droupadi Murmu.
Draft Bill on amendment to Telangana PR Act
According to sources, the Law department has prepared a draft Bill to promulgate an ordinance to amend the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018, which would be presented during the Cabinet meeting on Thursday (July 10).
The amendment would be confined only to the provisions which fixed a cap on reservations for SC, ST and BC communities, sources added.
The Governor should prorogue the Fifth Session of the Third Telangana Legislative Assembly (Budget session) for the government to promulgate an ordinance. While there is a precedent set forth by the Supreme Court not to exceed the reservations by 50%, the state government is likely to present the outcome of the Socio Economic, Education, Employment, Political and Caste Survey to be the reasons to exceed that limit. Nevertheless, the legal and constitutional implications of exceeding the 50% threshold remain contentious.
Timing and legality of local body elections
Sources said that the Cabinet is also expected to deliberate on multiple scenarios, ranging from the President granting assent to the possibility of her withholding it. Either possibility carries significant consequences for the timing and legality of local body elections.
With the clock ticking towards the September deadline set by the HC, the coming days will be crucial in determining whether the government can navigate the legal complexities to implement its reservation agenda or if it will be forced into a political recalibration.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
23 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Age of consent must stay 18: Centre to Supreme Court
The Union government on Wednesday opposed any move to lower the age of consent under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act or introduce exceptions for adolescent relationships, telling the Supreme Court that such dilution, 'even in the name of reform or adolescent autonomy,' would dismantle the statutory shield meant to safeguard minors and risk opening the door to child abuse. The Centre firmly urged the top court to reject any proposition to amend or dilute the age of consent, stating that such a move would embolden exploitative conduct and harm the very children the law seeks to protect. (HT Photo) In its written submissions filed before a bench of justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, the government underscored that the current threshold of 18 must remain 'strictly and uniformly enforced' to maintain the integrity of child protection laws and uphold the best interests of minors. 'The statutory age of consent fixed at eighteen years must therefore be strictly and uniformly enforced. Any departure from this standard, even in the name of reform or adolescent autonomy, would amount to rolling back decades of progress in child protection law,' the Centre said, adding that 'introducing a legislative close-in-age exception or reducing the age of consent would irrevocably dilute the statutory presumption of vulnerability that lies at the heart of child protection law.' The Centre's categorical stand assumes significance amid a deluge of cases where courts are increasingly confronted with situations involving consensual relationships between adolescents, often leading to the prosecution of young boys under POCSO, even when the alleged victim does not complain of coercion or exploitation. The Centre's response comes in the wake of concerns raised by senior advocate Indira Jaising, who, in her capacity as amicus curiae, had submitted earlier this year that mandatory reporting of all sexual activity involving minors, even consensual encounters between adolescents, was leading to the criminalisation of young people and severely compromising the health rights, privacy, and autonomy of adolescent girls. Jaising and senior advocate Sidharth Luthra are assisting the top court in a 2012 public interest litigation filed by advocate Nipun Saxena. The matter is expected to be taken up again on Thursday. Emphasising the deliberate and coherent statutory policy behind setting 18 as the age of consent, the Centre, however, stated: 'The legislative determination to fix the age of consent at eighteen years, and to treat all sexual activities with a person below that age as an offence irrespective of purported consent, is a product of a deliberate, well-considered and coherent statutory policy.' This policy, the submissions said, is reflected not just in the POCSO Act but also across several legal instruments, including the Indian Penal Code, its successor the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Indian Majority Act, the Juvenile Justice Act, and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act -- all of which view individuals under 18 as legally incapable of full agency in decisions with lasting consequences. 'It is submitted that this policy decision is an outcome of careful and ongoing legislative discussions, considering India's cultural diversity, socio-economic conditions, and the practical challenges faced across the country,' the government said. 'It reflects a clear understanding of the vulnerability of minors, the common occurrence of coercion and manipulation in such situations, and the challenges in proving the absence of consent when minors are involved,' added the submissions, settled by additional solicitor general Aishwarya Bhati. The government also warned that lowering the age of consent would shift focus from the conduct of the accused to the perceived willingness of the child, undermining the spirit of child-centric justice and increasing the risk of victim-blaming. 'A diluted law risks opening the floodgates to trafficking and other forms of child abuse under the garb of consent…such a shift would inevitably lead to the re-victimisation of the child by shifting the focus from the unlawful conduct of the accused to the credibility of the child's version,' it further noted. While acknowledging that some adolescent relationships may be consensual and born out of 'emotional curiosity or mutual attraction,' the Centre maintained that these instances must be left to the courts to evaluate individually, and should not become the basis for legislative change. 'Such instances must be carefully scrutinised by courts on a case-by-case basis, using discretion and sensitivity to the facts. This judicial discretion, however, is distinct from legislative dilution. The moment the statute begins to generalise such exceptions, it weakens the bright-line protective standard that currently acts as a deterrent and shield for all children,' the submissions stated. Referring to data cited by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Human Resource Development in its 240th Report, the government highlighted that more than 50% of sexual offences against children are perpetrated by persons known to the victim, including family members, caregivers, and teachers, which, it said, are relationships often marked by a power imbalance that prevents children from resisting or reporting abuse. 'In such cases, presenting 'consent' as a defence only victimises the child, shifts the blame onto them, and undermines the very object of POCSO to protect children from exploitation regardless of whether they were 'willing',' the Centre said. It further asserted that strict liability under POCSO is not punitive but protective, recognising that minors, regardless of physical maturity, are often incapable of giving informed consent, especially under social, familial, or economic pressure. 'This principle is not confined to a single enactment but is consistently reflected across multiple enactments…This formulation is a deliberate choice, grounded in the recognition that minors lack the legal and developmental capacity to give meaningful and informed consent in matters involving sexual activity,' the government submitted. Invoking international commitments, the Centre also pointed to India's obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), which defines a child as anyone under 18 and mandates States to protect them from all forms of sexual exploitation and abuse. The POCSO Act, it added, was 'enacted in direct response to this obligation, codifying a strict liability regime wherein all sexual acts with children under 18 are criminalised, irrespective of perceived consent.' The Centre firmly urged the top court to reject any proposition to amend or dilute the age of consent, stating that such a move would embolden exploitative conduct and harm the very children the law seeks to protect.
Time of India
26 minutes ago
- Time of India
SC asks Karnataka, Centre to act on 5 tigers' death
Representational Image NEW DELHI: Expressing concern over death of five tigers in MM Hills sanctuary last month, Supreme Court on Wednesday sought Karnataka govt's response and asked the Union ministry of environment and forests to frame policy in consultation with states to end human-animal conflict, resulting in such avoidable tragic incidents. Amicus curiae and senior advocate P Parameshwaran placed the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) report before a three-judge bench led by CJI B R Gavai and said it was a clear case of human-animal conflict as villagers poisoned a cattle carcass which was consumed by a tigress and her four cubs, resulting in their death. He said many cattle of surrounding villages strayed into the sanctuary and were attacked by wild animals, including tigers. It required robust patrolling by forest staff, but it was not being done as the majority of forest staff were hired by contractors. The contractors did not provide these outsourced forest guards, employed in most tiger reserves and sanctuaries, any weapon or scientific equipment to effectively patrol the sanctuary and protect it from stray cattle and poachers, resulting in such unfortunate incidents, Parameshwaran said. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like American Investor Warren Buffett Recommends: 5 Books For Turning Your Life Around Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo The bench asked additional solicitor general Aishwarya Bhati to ask the MoEF take the initiative by consulting all states and stakeholders to solve this staff issue. Bhati assured the court that it would be done. "This tragic incident underscores the urgent need for stronger preventive measures, including intensified patrolling, robust surveillance mechanisms like camera traps, community engagement to address human-wildlife conflict, rapid response protocols for carcass monitoring, and stricter enforcement of laws against wildlife poisoning to prevent recurrence of such deliberate killings," the CEC said in its report. "Among the tiger landscapes in India, the Western Ghats is an important landscape complex from habitat, population and management points of view," it said.
Time of India
30 minutes ago
- Time of India
SC turns down plea to stay NEET counselling
Supreme Court NEW DELHI: Supreme Court on Wednesday turned down plea of two students to stay counselling for undergraduate medical admission on the basis of NEET-UG 2025 but agreed to hear their grievances. The petitioners approached the court after allegedly suffering a power outage during the exam at a test centre in Madhya Pradesh. Agreeing to hear their plea, the Supreme Court bench of Justices P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar, made it clear that there would be no stay on the counselling and listed the petition for Friday. The candidates approached the Supreme Court against the July 14 order of the Madhya Pradesh high court refusing to order a re-test for them. TNN
