ARTICLE AD BOX
HYDERABAD: The Telangana High Court on Wednesday refused to entertain a writ petition seeking to stall the Panchayat elections in the state, likely to be held soon.A division bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice GM Mohiuddin, while hearing the petition filed challenging the 100% reservation of gram panchayat sarpanch posts in scheduled areas of the state and the upcoming elections without reorganising the posts, observed that since no notification for gram panchayat elections was issued, the petition was premature and not fit for consideration.“We cannot direct how the legislature has to implement legislation, and it is also not the court's purview to direct the govt to declare a certain area as a tribal area,” maintained the bench.
The petitioner, ‘NonTribal Welfare Society’ of Bhadradri Kothagudem District, argued that granting total reservation for sarpanch posts in erstwhile districts such as Adilabad, Khammam, Warangal, and Mahbubnagar was unconstitutional and contrary to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Chebrolu Leela Prasad vs State of Andhra Pradesh.
It was contended that several mandals in the districts have only about 20% tribal population, making complete reservation unjustified.The petitioner also expressed apprehension that elections might be conducted without proper reorganisation of scheduled areas, citing a 2015 communication from the Tribal Welfare Commissioner to district collectors recommending rationalisation of scheduled areas to align them with tribal sub-plan areas.
Opposing the plea, the state relied on a July 2023 judgment of a coordinate bench of the Telangana High Court upholding similar reservations. “Long-standing regulations in force for over 50 years carry the force of law under Article 13 of the Constitution and remain valid until amended by the competent legislature for the benefit of tribal communities,” the state submitted.Agreeing with the state’s submissions, the High Court observed that since no notification for gram panchayat elections was issued, the petition was premature and not fit for consideration. Without going into the merits of the constitutional challenge, the Court dismissed the plea.