Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Wednesday directed the state government to constitute a “dedicated commission” — instead of the Backward Class Commission — for collecting empirical data for the purpose of providing reservations for the Other Backward Classes in the ensuing local body elections in Telangana.
When Advocate General A. Sudershan Reddy came to know about the order, he rushed to the court hall and requested the bench to recall the order. However, the bench refused to entertain his request and was firm on the constitution of the Dedicated Commission. The court gave two weeks from Wednesday to constitute the Commission.
The court opined that entrusting the work of collecting empirical data to the BC Commission violates the judgement of a five-judge Supreme Court bench, which was followed by the three-judge bench’s order in the Vikas Kishan Rao Gawali case. The court directed the state government to follow the Supreme Court’s guidelines.
Justice Surepalli Nanda gave this interim order in a petition filed by R. Krishniah, former MP, YSR Congress, and the president of National BC Welfare Association, seeking a direction to the Telangana government to constitute a dedicated commission for collecting empirical data for the purpose of providing reservations for the Other Backward Classes in the ensuing local body elections.
B. Shiva Prasad, senior counsel and former advocate-general of Telangana, representing Krishniah, argued that the BC Commission is constituted under the Backward Class Commission Act, enacted pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sawhany for the purposes of reviewing the reservation qua the Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution.
Whereas the “dedicated commission” for the purpose of contemporaneous rigorous empirical data qua the reservations for Backward Classes in local bodies is set up under Article 340 of the the Constitution as laid down as a triple test by interpreting the provisions of Articles 243D(6) and 243T(6) by the constitution bench of the Supreme Court in the Dr. K. Krishna Murthy case.
Senior counsel B.S. Prasad also brought to the notice of the court that when the Maharashtra government appointed the BC Commission as the “Dedicated Commission” which furnished an interim report, the report was set aside as it did not meet the parameter of rigorous empirical data because the BC Commission cannot be appointed as “Designated Commission”. Later, the Maharashtra government appointed a Dedicated Commission known as Banthia Commission for the purpose of conducting rigorous empirical inquiry for the purpose of providing reservation for the backward classes in the local body elections.
If the report was furnished by the BC Commission, in the event of challenge, the whole objective of reservation sought to be achieved under the Constitution will be frustrated by delays, said Prasad.
Siddivardhan, a counsel appearing on behalf of the state government, submitted that there is no bar to give authority to the BC Commission to conduct the survey and collect the data.
However, Justice Nanda observed that the Commission constituted by the state government for conducting contemporaneous rigorous empirical enquiry for the purpose of providing reservations for backward classes by entrusting this task to the “BC Commission” is not in consonance with the Supreme Court judgment in the “Vikas Kishan Rao Gawali Vs., state of Maharashtra”, and issued interim orders to appoint the dedicated commission within two weeks.
After the judge issued the interim order in the morning session, the Advocate General appeared before Justice Surepalli Nanda in the “post lunch session” and prayed the court to recall the order.
The Advocate-General also submitted that the state government, in adherence to the directions of the Supreme Court has designated the Backward Class Commission as Dedicated Commission and the requirement as contended in the Writ Petition is met. He also submitted that already time was fixed as November 30 to complete the task given to the BC Commission. However, the judge refused to agree to the contentions of the Advocate-General. It was learnt that the government is going to file an appeal against the single judge’s orders.
