APHC010446182026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

W.P.(PIL) No.194 of 2026 along with

W.P.(PIL) Nos.201 of 2026; 210 of 2025; 126 of 2026

Bench

Sr.Nos:-

_____

[3584]

1. W.P.(PIL) No.194 of 2026:

Thandava Yogesh ...Petitioner

Vs.

The State Election Commission and others ...Respondents

2. W.P.(PIL) No.201 of 2026:

Penamakuru Venkata Narasimha Sarma ...Petitioner

Vs.

Union of India and others ...Respondents

3. W.P.(PIL) No.210 of 2025:

Kesana Sankara Rao ...Petitioner

Vs.

State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents

4. W.P.(PIL) No.126 of 2026:

Mulaveesala Durga Prasad ...Petitioner

Vs.

The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents

**********

Reserved for orders on : 16.09.2026 - W.P.(PIL) Nos.194 & 201 of

2026 &

24.09.2026 - W.P.(PIL) Nos.210 of 2025 &

126 of 2026

Pronounced on :

01.10.2026

Whether only operative :

part of the judgment is

pronounced or whether

full judgment is pronounced

Full

2

W.P.(PIL) No.194 of 2026 & batch

CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL

SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN

DATE : 01

st

October 2026

Present:

Party in Person :

Advocate for Petitioner :

Mr. Thandava Yogesh

in W.P.(PIL) No.194 of 2026

Mr. Gundala Siva Prasad Reddy

in W.P.(PIL) No.201 of 2026

Mr. A. Satya Prasad, Sr. Counsel with

Mr. U. D. Jai Bhima Rao

in W.P.(PIL) No.210 of 2025

Mr. G. Sai Narayana Rao

in W.P.(PIL) No.126 of 2026

Advocates for Respondents : Mr. Devadatt Kamat, Sr. Counsel (through

V.C.) & Mr. D. Srinivas, Advocate General,

A.P., with Mr. D. Yatindra Dev, Spl. GP for

State

LISA GILL, CJ.

These Writ Petitions filed by way of Public Interest Litigation are being

decided by a common decision as the issues raised are closely interlinked

with the common thread of elections to Local Bodies running through them.

W.P.(PIL) Nos.194 & 201 of 2026 were heard on 16.09.2026; W.P.(PIL)

Nos.210 of 2025 & 126 of 2026 were heard on 24.09.2026 and reserved for

orders.

2. Petitioners in W.P.(PIL) Nos.194 & 201 of 2026 seek setting

aside of G.O.Ms.No.105, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (E & R)

Department, dated 20.08.2026, prescribing 34% reservation for Backward

3

W.P.(PIL) No.194 of 2026 & batch

Classes in Panchayat Raj Institutions; and G.O.Rt.No.1065, Municipal

Administration and Urban Development (G) Department, dated 19.08.2026,

prescribing 33.33% reservation for Backward Classes in Urban Local Bodies

inasmuch as it is not ensured that aggregate vertical reservation for SCs, STs

and BCs remains within constitutionally permissible limits of 50% and thus are

contrary to judgments of Hon‟ble the Supreme Court in Dr. K. Krishnamurthy

Vs. Union of India

1

, Vikas Kishanrao Gawali Vs. State of Maharashtra

2

,

and Suresh Mahajan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

3

, and decision of

Division Bench of this Court in Birru Prathap Reddy Vs. State of Andhra

Pradesh

4

, which was upheld by Hon‟ble the Supreme Court.

3. W.P.(PIL) No.210 of 2025 has been filed seeking a direction to

respondent State to undertake a population survey for Backward Class

communities in State of Andhra Pradesh for purpose of conducting election to

local bodies and for declaring inaction on the part of said respondents in

conducting this survey to be illegal, arbitrary, violative of constitutional scheme

and contrary to directions of this Court in the cases of Nimmaka Jaya Raj Vs.

The Government of Andhra Pradesh

5

, and Birru Prathap Reddy (supra).

4. W.P.(PIL) No.126 of 2026 has now been filed seeking a direction

to respondents to implement reservation for Backward Classes in Gram

Panchayat Elections by strictly adhering to sub-classification among Backward

1

(2010) 7 SCC 202

2

(2021) 6 SCC 73

3

(2022) 12 SCC 770

4

2020 SCC OnLine AP 109

5

2012 SCC OnLine AP 196

4

W.P.(PIL) No.194 of 2026 & batch

Classes, as it is submitted that non-implementation of reservation of Backward

Classes by following sub-classification (BC-A, BC-B, BC-C, BC-D & BC-E) for

posts of Sarpanches under Section 15(2) of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for

short, “APPRA”) and treating all Backward Classes as a single homogenous

block is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

5. For sake of convenience, facts referred to are from Writ Petition

(PIL) No.194 of 2026, as it is agreed that reference to pleadings in individual

petitions is not required. Issue thus pertains to quantum of reservations for

Backward Classes for purpose of election to Local Bodies and the basis or

substratum for arriving at such percentage.

6. G.O.Ms.No.105 dated 20.08.2026 was issued by respondent-

State in respect to reservation to be provided to Backward Classes in

Panchayat Raj Institutions. It is stated therein that Government has decided to

restore 34% reservation for Backward Classes in offices of Members of Gram

Panchayat (Section 9 APPRA), Sarpanch of Gram Panchayats (Section 15

APPRA), Members of Mandal Praja Parishads (MPTCs) (Section 152

APPRA), Presidents of Mandal Praja Parishads (Section 153 APPRA),

Members of Zilla Praja Parishads (ZPTCs) (Section 180 APPRA), and

Chairpersons of Zilla Praja Parishads (Section 181 APPRA). It is ordered that

34% of seats/offices specified in abovesaid shall be reserved for Backward

Classes in accordance with APPRA; Rules made thereunder and orders of

competent Courts in force, duly superseding orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.559,

Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (E & R) Department, dated

5

W.P.(PIL) No.194 of 2026 & batch

02.03.2020, and G.O.Ms.560, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (E & R)

Department, dated 02.03.2020, which are superseded to extent they are

inconsistent with G.O.Ms.No.105 dated 20.08.2026.

7. G.O.Rt.No.1065, Municipal Administration and Urban

Development (G) Department was issued on 19.08.2026 relating to ensuing

Ordinary Elections to Urban Local Bodies including Municipal Corporations,

Municipalities and Nagar Panchayats in the State, implementation of existing

one-third i.e. 33.33% reservation for Backward Classes under Section 6 and

14(A) of Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1994 regarding

Municipal Corporations and under Sections 8 and 24 of Andhra Pradesh

Municipalities Act, 1965 in respect of Municipalities and Nagar Panchayats is

directed. W.P.(PIL) Nos.194 & 201 of 2026 were filed by way of public interest

challenging said GOs.

8. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of matter are that APPRA

was enacted on 21.04.1994. Article 243D - Part IX of Constitution of India

provides for reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

at Panchayat Level. Article 243D(6) enables State Legislature to provide for

reservation of seats and offices of Chairpersons at Panchayats at any level in

favor of Backward Classes. Article 243T(6) provides for reservation of

Backward Classes in Municipalities.

9. By way of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Amendment) Act,

1995 (Act No.5 of 1995), State Legislature substituted earlier provision of one-

6

W.P.(PIL) No.194 of 2026 & batch

third reservation for Backward Classes in relevant seats and offices of Gram

Panchayats, Mandal Praja Parishads and Zilla Praja Parishads to a statutory

minimum of 34%. Said amendment provided reservation for Backward

Classes “not less than 34%” in relevant provisions i.e. Section 9(1-A), 15(2),

152(1-A), 153(2-A), 180(1-A) and 181(2)(b) APPRA.

10. Said amendment was challenged vide W.P.(PIL) No.2 of 2020

titled ‘Birru Prathap Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & others’ &

batch. Said batch of writ petitions was allowed on 02.03.2020 and

G.O.Ms.No.176 PR & RD dated 28.12.2019 was set aside . Thereafter,

impugned G.O.Ms.No.105, dated 20.08.2026 and G.O.Rt.No.1065, dated

19.08.2026 have now been issued, which are subject matter of challenge in

W.P.(PIL) Nos.194 & 201 of 2026.

Submissions on behalf of petitioners:

11. Learned counsel for petitioners vehemently argued that impugned

G.O.Ms.No.105, dated 20.08.2026 and G.O.Rt.No.1065, dated 19.08.2026,

are absolutely illegal, arbitrary and in the teeth of settled position of law and

issued in a manner totally unmindful of the fact that earlier G.O.Ms.No.176,

dated 28.12.2019 providing for such reservation had been set aside by

Division Bench of this Court in the case of Birru Prathap Reddy, with the said

decision having attained finality. Therefore decision of Government to

“restore” 34% reservation for Backward Classes was taken vide

G.O.Ms.No.105 and G.O.Rt.No.1065.

7

W.P.(PIL) No.194 of 2026 & batch

12. It was contended that triple test, as laid down by Hon'ble the

Supreme Court in the case of Vikas Kishanrao Gawali (supra), has not been

satisfied. As a matter of fact, the exercise of determining the percentage of

Backward Class persons in the State by a dedicated commission has not

been carried out. There is no data available as on date which would justify

restoration of reservation of not less than 34% for backward classes. It is

asserted that there is no material on record to indicate any empirical inquiry

undertaken by dedicated commission. Furthermore, reliance by the State

upon a contemporary statewide household level enumeration through Unified

Family Survey cannot be made the basis for restoration of reservation for

Backward Classes as above. It was thus prayed by Mr. Thandava Yogesh and

Mr. G. Siva Prasad Reddy, learned counsel representing petitioners that

W.P.(PIL) Nos.194 & 201 of 2026 be allowed as prayed for and impugned

Government Orders be set aside.

13. Mr. A. Satya Prasad, learned Senior Counsel for petitioner in

W.P.(PIL) No.210 of 2025 submits that there had been no data with State

Government in the year 1986, whereafter figures collected by Backward Class

Cooperative Finance Corporation Limited, Hyderabad, were taken in

consideration for purpose of reservation, but the same did not find favour with

this Court, as revealed in the case of Nimmaka Jaya Raj (supra), specific

directions were issued therein, which had not been complied with even till

date.

8

W.P.(PIL) No.194 of 2026 & batch

14. It is contended that a dedicated Backward Class Commission has

to be appointed; the task of which is not to fix the proportion of reservation but

to conduct proper survey and collect empirical data for determination of

Backward Classes. Dedicated Commission so appointed with Sri Justice A.

Shankar Narayana, former Judge of erstwhile High Court of Judicature at

Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, with

three other Members vide G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 30.01.2023, cannot be termed

to be a Dedicated Commission and that subsequent appointment of so called

One-Man Dedicated Commission constituted on 11.12.2025 is in total violation

of the Andhra Pradesh Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1993.

It is to be noted that there is no such prayer in WP(PIL) No.210 of 2025.

15. Learned counsel for petitioner in W.P.(PIL) No.126 of 2026

submits that prayer in said writ petition is for sub-classification of Backward

Classes. He adopts the arguments as raised by learned counsel for petitioner

in W.P.(PIL) No.210 of 2025, while submitting that sub-classification of

Backward Classes is the need of the hour to fulfill the constitutional mandate.

Learned counsel for petitioners in all four writ petitions, thus, prayed for the

relief as argued.

Submissions on behalf of respondents:

16. Mr. Devadatt Kamat, learned Senior Counsel appearing for State

and learned Advocate General, while refuting averments as raised on behalf

of all writ petitions, sought dismissal of writ petitions.

9

W.P.(PIL) No.194 of 2026 & batch

17. Learned counsel were at pains to explain that impugned

G.O.Ms.No.105 dated 20.08.2026 and G.O.Rt.No.1065, dated 19.08.2026

were issued on the basis of data collected under comprehensive Unified

Family Survey, which was also supplied to Dedicated Commission, and the

same can very well form the basis of determining the extent of reservation of

Backward Classes.

18. It was submitted by learned Advocate General that State of

Andhra Pradesh undertook a comprehensive Unified Family Survey under

Family Benefit Management System (FBMS), pursuant to G.O.Rt.No.207,

Planning (XIII) Department, dated 23.12.2025, with the object of creating an

updated and unified database of household and citizens of State, and to

facilitate evidence-based policy design and implementation. Earlier Andhra

Pradesh State Commission for Backward Classes, Vijayawada, as a

dedicated commission, was constituted vide G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 30.01.2023.

Report was not submitted by said commission. Therefore, after due

consideration, G.O.Ms.No.3, dated 19.02.2026, was issued constituting an

Independent Dedicated Commission with Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Mishra, retired IAS,

being appointed as Independent Dedicated Commission to conduct a

contemporaneous and rigorous empirical inquiry into the nature, extent and

implications of backwardness qua Local Bodies within State of Andhra

Pradesh.

19. It was directed that Dedicated Commission would determine and

specify the proportion of reservation to be provided, local-body wise, strictly in

10

W.P.(PIL) No.194 of 2026 & batch

conformity with provisions of Constitution of India and in adherence to

principles laid down by Hon‟ble Apex Court in Dr. K. Krishnamurthy (supra)

and Vikas Kishanrao Gawali (supra), and to submit a comprehensive report,

preferably within a period of 45 days; period for submission of report was

subsequently extended vide G.O.Rt.No.63, G.O.Ms.No.7, G.O.Ms.No.10 and

G.O.Ms.No.11, dated 13.05.2026, 22.06.2026, 04.08.2026 and 31.08.2026

respectively.

20. Dedicated Commission, in addition to data collected in UFS

process, which was supplied to commission, conducted its own rigorous data

collection, supplemented by extensive field visits to various Districts,

Municipalities and Mandals. During such tours, said commission held in-depth

review meetings with State and District Level officials as well as interactions

with Revenue, Divisional, Mandal, Municipal and field-level officials; direct

interactions with local communities was also ensured.

21. Wide publicity was given through print and electronic media with

public being invited to either visit commission‟s office to submit

representations/memorandums through post or e -mail, which could be

submitted till 01.04.2026, with date being extended till 21.07.2026; 653

representations were received by commission. Besides numerous district-level

meetings, commission also visited Institute for Development Studies, Andhra

Pradesh, on 30.04.2026 and held discussions with various experts regarding

mandate and objectives of commission; relevant research studies, statistical

data and reports were taken into account; former Member of Andhra Pradesh

11

W.P.(PIL) No.194 of 2026 & batch

State Commission for Backward Classes and other experts in anthropology

from Anthropology Survey of India, Government of India, Visakhapatnam,

were consulted. Commission, after analyzing the data and information

obtained through ground-level meetings, submitted its report to State

Government on 14.08.2026. Said report dated 14.08.2026, it was informed,

was under consideration and had not yet been accepted or otherwise.

22. Learned Advocate General refuted the allegations as raised by

learned counsel for petitioners and contended that Independent Dedicated

Commission comprising Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Mishra, former IAS Officer,

constituted to undertake a specialized enquiry required for a Local Body

reservation, was entrusted with examining relevant empirical material

concerning social, educational, economic and political status of Backward

Class communities, their population and representation in local parties.

Furthermore, though population percentage alone does not determine

quantum of political reservation, it is an important and exclusive input to

determine nature and extent of backwardness in political sphere, barriers to

participation, actual representation and need to secure effective participation

in grassroots democratic institutions.

23. Mr. Devadatt Kamat, learned Senior Counsel, further submitted

that present Government Orders providing for reservation of not less than

34% and 33.33% and which results in aggregate vertical reservation of

61.08% and 49.24% respectively , is founded upon fresh and

contemporaneous demographic data and empirical exercise undertaken. Said

12

W.P.(PIL) No.194 of 2026 & batch

G.O.Ms.No.105 and G.O.Rt.No.1065 restoring 34% and 33.33% reservation

for Backward Classes cannot be treated to be a mere revival of earlier

exercise only on account of percentage being the same.

24. It was further contended that impugned G.O.Ms.No.105 and

G.O.Rt.No.1065 are not in violation of Birru Prathap Reddy (supra) on

account of the fresh exercise which has been undertaken for the purpose of

determining percentage of Backward Classes. Moreover, judgment of Hon‟ble

the Supreme Court in Dr. K. Krishna Murthy Vs. Union of India

6

, to the

extent that there cannot be any reservation beyond the limit of 50% has been

diluted by Hon‟ble the Supreme Court in its subsequent decision in the case of

Janhit Abhiyan Vs. Union of India

7

, wherein it has been held that the bar of

50% as a ceiling limit for reservation by way of affirmative action is desirable

but is not inviolable. Dismissal of writ petitions was thus sought.

25. Learned counsel vehemently argued that as far as arguments

raised by learned counsel for petitioner in W.P.(PIL) No.210 of 2025,

specifically in respect to appointment of Commission vide G.O.Ms.No.2, dated

30.01.2023 and subsequent appointment of Independent Dedicated

Commission vide G.O.Ms.No.3, dated 19.02.2026 are concerned, they need

to be ignored. This is so for the reason that there is no such pleading in writ

petition. It is only by way of oral arguments, learned counsel for petitioner in

W.P.(PIL) No.210 of 2025 has attacked formation / constitution of Commission

6

(2010) 7 SCC 202

7

(2023) 5 SCC 77

13

W.P.(PIL) No.194 of 2026 & batch

on 30.01.2023 and subsequently on 19.02.2026. It was urged that at the time

of filing of above said writ petition, appointment of Commission vide

G.O.Ms.No. 2, dated 30.01.2023, had admittedly taken place.

26. Learned Advocate General while dealing with contention raised in

W.P.(PIL).No.126 of 2026, submitted that there is no express mandate under

provisions of APPRA, 1994 providing for reservations on the basis of sub-

classification, thus, as a matter of right, reservations for backward classes by

following sub-classification cannot be sought for.

27. It was further contended by learned Advocate General that W.P.

(PIL) Nos.210 of 2025 and 126 of 2026 are rendered infructuous due to

issuance of G.O.Ms.No.105, dated 20.08.2026, and G.O.Rt.No.1065 dated

19.08.2026. Dismissal of writ petitions was sought.

28. We heard learned counsel for parties at length and have perused

the files carefully.

Analysis & Conclusion:

29. It is a matter of record that by way of 73

rd

amendment to

Constitution of India specific provisions were introduced regarding Local

Bodies, Part IX of Constitution of India deals with Panchayats and Part IX-A

with Municipalities. Article 243D provides for reservation of seats in

Panchayats and Article 243T provides for reservation of seats in

Municipalities. It is specifically provided therein that proportionate ratio of

population for reservation of seats is made applicable with respect to

14

W.P.(PIL) No.194 of 2026 & batch

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. For purpose of Backward Classes,

Articles 243D(6) and 243T(6) of Constitution enables Legislature of State to

make provisions regarding reservation of seats in Panchayats or offices of

Chairpersons in Panchayats at any level and Municipalities or offices of

Chairpersons in Municipalities.

30. State of Andhra Pradesh in terms of Article 243D(6) of

Constitution of India had earlier issued G.O.Ms.No.173, dated 28.12.2020,

whereby reservation for Backward Classes „not less than 34%‟ in relevant

provisions i.e. Section 9(1-A), 15(2), 152(1-A), 153(2-A), 180(1-A) and

181(2)(b) of APPRA was introduced.

31. Section 9 of APPRA dealing with reservation of seats of members

of Gram Panchayats, after issuance of G.O.Ms.No.173, dated 28.12.2020,

thus, read as under:

“9. Reservation of seats of members of Gram Panchayats:-

(1) In every Gram Panchayat, out of the total strength of elected

members determined under Section 7, the Commissioner shall, subject to

such rules as may be prescribed, by notification, reserve –

(a) such number of seats to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes as may be determined by him, subject to the condition that the

number of seats so reserved shall bear, as nearly as may be, the same

proportion to the total number of seats to be filled by direct election to the

Gram Panchayat, as the population of the Scheduled Castes, or as the

case may be, Scheduled Tribes in that village bears to the total population

of that village, and such seats may be allotted by rotation to different wards

in a Gram Panchayat;

(b) Omitted by Act No.5 of 1995

15

W.P.(PIL) No.194 of 2026 & batch

(c) not less than one-third of the total number of seats reserved

under [clause (a) and sub-section (1-A)] for women belonging to the

Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or as the case may be the Backward

Classes;

(d) not less than one-third (including the number of seats reserved

for women belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and

Backward Classes) of the total number of seats to be filled by direct

election to every Gram Panchayat shall be reserved for women and such

seats may be allotted by rotation to different wards in a Gram Panchayat.

(1A) In addition to the reservation of seats under sub-section (1),

there shall be reserved for the Backward Classes such a number of seats

as may be allocated to them in each Gram Panchayat in the manner

prescribed; so however that the number of offices of members of Gram

Panchayats in the State reserved for Backward Classes shall not be less

than thirty-four per cent of the total number of offices of the members of

Gram Panchayats in the State. The number of seats allocated to each

Gram Panchayat shall be allotted by rotation to different wards in the Gram

Panchayat:

Provided that it shall be competent for the Government to make

special provision with regard to the manner and quantum of seats to be

reserved for Backward Classes in the Gram Panchayats situated in the

Scheduled areas by rules made in this behalf."

(2) Nothing in sub-sections (1) and [(1A) shall be deemed to

prevent women and members of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes

or Backward Classes from standing for election to the non-reserved seats

in the Gram Panchayat.”

32. This was challenged before this Court by way of W.P.(PIL) No.2

of 2020 titled ‘Birru Prathap Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh’

(supra) and a batch of other writ petitions, which were allowed by Division

Bench of this Court on 02.03.2020. It was specifically held by Division Bench

that upper limit of reservation in terms of judgments of Hon‟ble the Supreme

16

W.P.(PIL) No.194 of 2026 & batch

Court in M.R.Balaji Vs. State of Mysore and Indra Sawhney vs. Union of

India

8

is 50%, unless it fall within the purview of exceptions carved out for

scheduled areas as specified in Constitution and considered in the case of

Union of India vs. Rakesh Kumar and others

9

. Reference was made to

judgment of Constitutional Bench of Hon‟ble the Supreme Court in the case of

K. Krishna Murthy (supra) to conclude that upper ceiling of reservation is

50% for SCs, STs and BCs and it cannot be breached in the context of local

self-Government. It was categorically held as under:

“26. It is not explicitly specified in the Constitution that what may be

the basis of reservation to the BCs, although for SCs and STs, it is expressly

provided that their reservation would be commensurate to their population.

In the said context, in the judgment of K.Krishna Murthy (supra) the Court

observed that quantum of the reservation to the BCs may also be

proportionate to population, but it should not exceed the upper ceiling of

50% to the vertical reservation in favour of SCs, STs and BCs in aggregate.

Thus, by harmonious reading of the constitutional provisions and the

enabling provisions under the APPRA and the law laid down in the case of

K.Krishna Murthy (supra), it can safely be observed that for BCs the

reservation may be commensurate to their population, but it should not

breach the aggregate percentage of 50% to the SCs, STs and BCs and the

exception is available to the Scheduled Tribes of the Scheduled areas and

not to the Backward Classes.”

33. Projected data by the State showing percentage of Backward

Class population was not found acceptable. At this juncture, it is relevant to

refer to earlier judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of

Nimmaka Jaya Raj Vs. Government of A.P.

10

, wherein it was specifically

8

(1992) 3 SCC 217

9

(2010)1 SCALE 281

10

2012(6) ALD 329 (DB)

17

W.P.(PIL) No.194 of 2026 & batch

directed that i) State shall fix reservation of Backward Classes at such

percentage so that it comes within 50% when the aggregate reservation of

Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes is put together;

ii) Furthermore, State shall conduct a detailed investigation with regard to

backwardness of the population, collect data, invite objections from the

general public, analyse the same and then fix the reservation in favour of

Backward Classes in accordance with constitutional scheme. It shall also

review the reservation from time to time; iii) The State Election Commission

shall commence the process of elections to the local bodies in the State of

Andhra Pradesh immediately and shall complete the elections within a period

of three months from the date of finalisation of the reservation percentage by

the State.

34. The above said judgment in the case of Nimmaka Jaya Raj

(supra) was also considered in subsequent judgment of Birru Prathap Reddy

(supra). It was thus concluded as under:

“40. As per the discussion made herein above, in our view, the

inescapable conclusion which can be arrived at is that the vertical

reservation for SCs, STs and BCs in aggregate cannot exceed 50% except

in exceptional circumstances so carved out in the judgment of Indra

Sawhney (supra) considered in Rakesh Kumar (supra) for the Scheduled

Areas, relied and followed in the judgment of K.Krishna Murthy (supra). In

view of the aforesaid legal position envisaged by the Judgment of K.Krishna

Murthy (supra) prescribing not less than 34% of reservation to BCs in

Sections 9(1-A), 15(2), 152(1A), 153(2A), 180(1-A) and 181(2)(b) of the

APPRA, by which the aggregate vertical percentage of reservation of SCs,

STs and BCs exceed 50% and comes to 59.85% is not valid. Thus, the

reservation for Backward Classes “not less than 34%” used in Sections 9(1-

18

W.P.(PIL) No.194 of 2026 & batch

A), 15(2), 152(1A), 153(2A), 180(1-A) and 181(2)(b) of the APPRA is held

ultra vires. Accordingly, the Rules 4, 7, 8, 10, 13 and 16 of Rules of 2006

shall prescribe the provision in consonance to the Act if amended, or as

directed by this Court. In consequence to the same, the G.O.Ms.No.176 PR

& RD Department issued by the State Government on 28.12.2019 of the

State Government prescribing minimum 34% reservation for BCs, also

stands set- aside. Further, consequential reservation, if any, made by the

Commissioner or the Collector either at Gram Panchayat, Mandal Praja

Parishad, Zilla Praja Parishad, be declared illegal and unconstitutional.

41. Accordingly, the said batch of Writ Petitions succeeds and are

hereby allowed. In view of the discussion made herein above, it is directed

that the State Government shall rearticulate the percentage of reservation

of the Gram Panchayats, Mandal Praja Parishads and Zilla Praja Parishads

to the Backward Classes, thereby the vertical reservation to the SCs, STs

and BCs should not exceed 50% in aggregate, in the light of the judgment

of K.Krishna Murthy (supra). The G.O.Ms.No.176 PR & RD dated

28.12.2019 issued by the State Government providing 59.85% aggregate

reservation is hereby set-aside and further consequential action regarding

reservation also stands set-aside. The Government is at liberty to make

provisions of reservation to the BCs in view of the discussion made herein

above within a period of one month.”

35. Thereafter G.O.Ms.Nos.560 & 559, Panchayat Raj and Rural

Development (E & R) Department, G.O.Ms.Nos.113 & 114, Municipal

Administration and Urban Development (G) Department, all dated 02.03.2020

respectively were issued providing that total reservation for SCs, STs and BCs

shall not exceed 50%.

36. Impugned G.O.Ms.No.105, dated 20.08.2026, however restores

34% reservation for Backward Classes in Panchayat Raj Institutions. Relevant

portion thereof reads as under:

19

W.P.(PIL) No.194 of 2026 & batch

“5. After careful consideration, Government have decided to restore

34% reservation for Backward Classes in the following seats/offices of

Panchayat Raj Institutions:

(i) Members of Gram Panchayats – Section 9;

(ii) Sarpanch of Gram Panchayats – Section 15;

(iii) Members of Mandal Praja Parishads (MPTCs) – Section 152;

(iv) Presidents of Mandal Praja Parishads – Section 153;

(v) Members of Zilla Praja Parishads (ZPTCs) – Section 180; and

(vi) Chairpersons of Zilla Praja Parishads – Section 181.

6. Accordingly, the Government hereby order that 34% of the

seats/offices specified in paragraph 5 above shall be reserved for Backward

Classes, in accordance with the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994,

the Rules made thereunder and the orders of the competent Courts in force

duly superseding the orders issued in G.O.Ms.Nos.559 & 560, dated

02.03.2020 to the extent they are inconsistent with these rules.”

37. Similarly G.O.Rt.No.1065, dated 19.08.2026 was also issued.

Relevant portion thereof reads as under:

“5. In the circumstances reported by the Commissioner & Director

of Municipal Administration, AP., in the reference 3rd read above, after

careful examination, Government hereby accord permission for the

following:

i. To take necessary steps for conduct of ordinary elections to the

Urban Local Bodies, comprising the ULBs whose elected Council tenure

has already expired and ULBs whose Council tenure will expire within the

ensuing three months, in coordination with the Andhra Pradesh State

Election Commission;

ii. To authorize the Municipal Administration & Urban Development

Department and the Commissioner & Director of Municipal Administration

to coordinate with the Andhra Pradesh State Election Commission and

other concerned authorities for completion of all pre-election requirements,

including electoral rolls, ward-related requirements, reservation

notifications and other statutory processes;

20

W.P.(PIL) No.194 of 2026 & batch

iii. To implement existing provisions of one third (33.33%)

reservations for Backward Classes vide Section 6 and 14 (A) of AP

Municipal Corporations Act 1994 in respect of Municipal Corporations and

vide Section 8 and 24 of the AP Municipalities Act, 1965 in respect of

Municipalities and Nagar Panchayats.

iv. To authorize the MA&UD Department to issue consequential

orders and take all further action required for implementation of the

decision of the Council of Ministers.”

38. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Devadatt Kamat, has laid much

stress on the plea that judgment of Hon‟ble the Supreme Court in the case of

Dr. K. Krishnamurthy (supra) has been considerably diluted by subsequent

judgment of Hon‟ble the Supreme Court in the case of Janhit Abhiyan

(supra) to the effect that the bar of 50% aggregate reservation is not

inviolable. In this regard, it is to be noted Hon‟ble the Supreme Court in the

case of Janhit Abhiyan (supra), after referring to its earlier judgment in Dr. K.

Krishnamurthy (supra) and Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil Vs. State of

Maharastra

11

, held as under:

“171. Thus, having examined the permissible limits of affirmative

action in light of the possible harm of preferential treatment qua other

innocent class of competitors, i.e., general merit candidates, this Court has

expressed the desirability of fifty per cent. as the ceiling limit for

reservation in education and public employment but, as observed

hereinbefore, all such observations are required to be read essentially in

the context of the reservation obtaining under Articles 15(4), 15(5) and

16(4) or other areas of affirmative action like that in relation to local self-

government [the case of K. Krishna Murthy (supra)] and cannot be

overstretched to the reservation provided for entirely different class,

consisting of the economically weaker sections.

11

(2021) 8 SCC 1

21

W.P.(PIL) No.194 of 2026 & batch

172. Moreover, as noticed, this ceiling limit, though held attached to

the constitutional requirements, has not been held to be inflexible and

inviolable for all times to come. Reasons for this are not far to seek. As

mentioned hereinbefore, reservation by affirmative action is not having

trappings of any such essential feature of the Constitution, collectively

enumerated by Kesavananda and successive decisions, that its

modulation with reference to any particular compelling reason or

requirement could damage the basic structure of the Constitution.”

39. Hon‟ble the Supreme Court in the case of Janhit Abhiyan

(supra) was seized of the issue of reservation for Economically Weaker

Sections of citizens up to 10% in addition to existing reservation. It was held

that such reservation was not in violation of any essential feature of

Constitution of India and does not damage any basic structure of Constitution

of India on account of breach of ceiling limit of 50% because that ceiling limit

itself is not inflexible and, in any case, applies only to reservations envisaged

under Articles 15(4), 15(5) and 16(4) of Constitution of India.

40. It is to be noted that in the case of Dr. K. Krishnamurthy (supra)

itself, Hon‟ble the Supreme Court had held that nature and purpose of

reservations in the context of local self-government is different from that in

higher education and public employment. It was held that:

“30. ……. In this respect, we endorse the proposition that Article

243D and 243T form a distinct and independent constitutional basis for

reservations in local self-government institutions, the nature and purpose of

which is different from the reservation policies designed to improve access

to higher education and public employment, as contemplated under Articles

15(4) and 16(4) respectively. Specifically with regard to the unviability of the

analogy between Article 16(4) and Article 243D, we are in agreement with a

decision of the Bombay High Court, reported as Vinayakrao Gangaramji

22

W.P.(PIL) No.194 of 2026 & batch

Deshmukh v. P.C. Agrawal & Ors, AIR 1999 Bom 142. That case involved

a fact-situation where the chairperson position in a Panchayat was reserved

in favour of a Scheduled Caste Woman. In the course of upholding this

reservation, it was held as follows:

"... Now, after the seventy-third and seventy-fourth

Constitutional amendments, the constitution of local bodies

has been granted a constitutional protection and Article

243D mandates that a seat be reserved for the Scheduled

Caste and Scheduled Tribe in every Panchayat and Sub-

article (4) of the said Article 243D also directs that the

offices of the Chairpersons in the panchayats at the village

or any other level shall be reserved for the Scheduled

Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and women in such manner

as the Legislature of a State may, by law, provide.

Therefore, the reservation in the local bodies like the Village

Panchayat is not governed by Article 16(4), which speaks

about the reservation in the public employment, but a

separate constitutional power which directs the reservation

in such local bodies. ..."

We are of course aware of the fact that some decisions in the past

have examined the validity of reservations in local self-government by

applying the principles evolved in relation to education and employment.”

41. It was held that there is an inherent difference in respect to

reservations in higher education and public employment; participation in local

self-government is intended as a more immediate measure of empowerment

for community that the elected representative belongs to. Therefore,

reservations in local self-governments are intended to directly benefit the

community as a whole, rather than just the elected representative.

42. Thereafter, Hon‟ble the Supreme Court in the case of Vikas

Kishanrao Gawali (supra) held that certain pre-conditions for reserving seats

23

W.P.(PIL) No.194 of 2026 & batch

for Backward Classes should be fulfilled; State Government was obligated to

set up a dedicated commission to conduct contemporaneous rigorous

empirical inquiry into the nature and implications of backwardness; State is

required to specify necessary proportion of reservation local-body wise, in the

light of recommendation and that such reservation should not exceed

aggregate of 50% of total seats reserved in favour of SCs, STs and BCs taken

together.

43. Doubtlessly Hon‟ble the Supreme Court in the case of Janhit

Abhiyan (supra) has held that ceiling limit of 50%, though held attached to

constitutional requirements, is not inflexible and inviolable for all times to come

and that reservation by affirmative action is not having trappings of any such

essential feature of Constitution collectively enumerated in the case of

Keshavananda Bharathi and successive decisions, but it is to be noticed that

any breach of ceiling has to be based on substantial facts and figures which

would justify such a breach. In the present case, State has admittedly relied

upon empirical data collected in the process of a Unified Family Survey and

placed before Dedicated Commission.

44. It was projected before the Court that this was the data which has

been relied upon by Independent Dedicated Commission constituted on

19.02.2026 for the purpose of conducting a contemporaneous and rigorous

empirical inquiry into the nature, extent and implications of backwardness qua

Local Bodies within State of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, the data which has

been relied upon by said commission has been utilized. It is to be noted that,

24

W.P.(PIL) No.194 of 2026 & batch

though not pleaded, learned counsel for petitioner in W.P.(PIL) No.210 of

2025 had argued that the commission appointed vide G.O.Ms.No.2, dated

30.01.2023, as well as Independent Dedicated Commission appointed vide

G.O.Ms.No.3, dated 19.02.2026, are not in compliance with the Andhra

Pradesh Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1993. Therefore, any report

of such commissions cannot form the basis of determining percentage of

reservation.

45. Dehors the issue of validity of said commissions, which in any

case is not being considered in these matters, in the absence of any challenge

thereto, it is to be noted that report stated to have been submitted by One Man

Commission has not been accepted by the Government. Same is stated to be

pending consideration.

46. Reliance is being placed by State on the empirical data collected

by Unified Family Survey, which, in our considered opinion, cannot form the

basis of declaration for reservation for Backward Classes. Keeping in view the

factual matrix, there is no empirical data as envisaged and required for

reservation to Backward Classes beyond 50%, in view of various categoric

pronouncements of Hon‟ble the Supreme Court, including decision in the case

of Vikas Kishanrao Gawali (supra); and Janhit Abhiyan (supra).

47. In the given facts and circumstances, G.O.Ms.No.105 dated

20.08.2026 and G.O.Rt.No.1065 dated 19.08.2026 are not sustainable to the

25

W.P.(PIL) No.194 of 2026 & batch

extent of vertical reservation to SCs, STs and BCs collectively or in aggregate

exceeding 50% and are hence set aside.

48. It is open for the State to revisit the issue and determine the

percentage of reservation for Backward Classes beyond 50%, in view of

judgment of Hon‟ble the Supreme Court in the case of Janhit Abhiyan

(supra), after completing the exercise of collection of data in compliance with

judgment of Hon‟ble the Supreme Court in the case of Vikas Kishanrao

Gawali (supra).

49. W.P.(PIL) Nos.194 & 201 of 2026 are accordingly disposed of.

50. We take note of the fact that prayer in W.P.(PIL) No.210 of 2025

is for declaring inaction on the part of respondent State in conducting

population survey of Backward Classes in State of Andhra Pradesh and

categorizing said Backward Classes into various categories for purpose of

conducting elections to Local Bodies and taking steps for conducting elections

without undertaking this exercise and a consequential direction to State to

undertake population survey for Backward Class communities in State for this

purpose.

51. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner in this matter, at the time of

hearing, had confined his arguments to invalidity and illegality of appointment

of Dedicated Commission vide G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 30.01.2023 and later

Independent Dedicated Commission constituted vide G.O.Ms.No.3 dated

19.02.2026. Learned Advocate General had specifically objected thereto while

26

W.P.(PIL) No.194 of 2026 & batch

submitting that State had issued G.O.Ms.No.105, dated 20.08.2026 and

G.O.Rt.No.1065, dated 19.08.2026, on the basis of data collected under

Unified Family Survey, which are subject matter of challenge in W.P.(PIL)

Nos.194 & 201 of 2026.

52. Perusal of writ petition reveals that there is no challenge to

appointment of commission vide G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 30.01.2023, which was

obviously in place at the time of filing of writ petition. There has been no

subsequent amendment in writ petition for challenging said Government Order

or even constitution of Independent Dedicated Commission so constituted by

State vide G.O.Ms.No.3 dated 19.02.2026.

53. In the given facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to

consider and adjudicate upon validity of constitution of said commissions as

urged by learned counsel for petitioners, in the absence of specific pleadings

in writ petition, thereby denying the opportunity of replying thereto by the

State.

54. Prayer in W.P.(PIL) No.126 of 2026 is for a direction to the State

to take a decision in regard to the question of sub-classification of Backward

Classes. Sub-classification in respect to SCs, STs and BCs was considered

by Hon‟ble the Supreme Court in a detailed judgment titled ‘State of Punjab

and others Vs. Davinder Singh and others’. It was held that, after

considering various judgments including judgments in the case of E.V.

27

W.P.(PIL) No.194 of 2026 & batch

Chinnaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

12

, Indra Sawhney Vs. Union of

India

13

, and various other judgments, that sub-classification or categorization

within a class is not impermissible, however, to carry out the same, it has first

to be determined if the class is „homogeneous‟ or „similarly situated‟; if the

answer is in affirmative, there can be no sub-classification; and if the answer

is in negative, sub-classification can be imaged on the basis of yardsticks

having rational nexus with purpose sought to be achieved. State has to prove

the group/caste carved out from larger group of Scheduled Castes/ Backward

Classes is more disadvantageously placed than the rest in same group. These

are issues to be considered by the State and there can be no Mandamus

directing the State to carryout sub-classification as has been prayed for.

55. To recapitulate for the sake of convenience, we hold that

G.O.Ms.No.105, dated 20.08.2026 and G.O.Rt.No.1065 dated 19.08.2026 are

not sustainable to the extent of vertical reservation to SCs, STs and BCs

collectively or in aggregate exceeding 50% and are hence set aside. It is open

for the State to revisit the issue and determine the percentage of reservation

for Backward Classes beyond 50%, in view of judgment of Hon‟ble the

Supreme Court in the case of Janhit Abhiyan (supra), after completing the

exercise of collection of data in compliance with judgment of Hon‟ble the

Supreme Court in the case of Vikas Kishanrao Gawali (supra).

56. W.P.(PIL) Nos.194 & 201 of 2026 are accordingly disposed of.

12

(2005) 1 SCC 394

13

1992 (3) SCC(SUPP) 217

28

W.P.(PIL) No.194 of 2026 & batch

57. No adjudication is called for in the factual matrix, upon the validity

of constitution of Dedication Commissions vide G.O.Ms.Nos.2 & 3, dated

30.01.2023 and 19.02.2026 respectively as argued by learned Senior Counsel

for petitioner, in the absence of any pleadings in this respect in the writ

petition. W.P.(PIL) No.210 of 2025 is thus dismissed.

58. No ground for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the State

to carryout sub-classification of Backward Classes is made out. W.P.(PIL)

No.126 of 2026 is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous applications, if any, including

I.A.No.3 of 2026 in W.P.(PIL) No.194 of 2026 and I.A.No.2 of 2026 in

W.P.(PIL) No.210 of 2025 stand closed.

Photocopy of this order be placed on files of connected cases.

LISA GILL, CJ

Date: October 1

st

, 2026. CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J

kbs

Uploaded on : 01.10.2026

Whether the order is Speaking/Reasoned : Yes

Whether the order is Reportable : Yes

29

W.P.(PIL) No.194 of 2026 & batch

47

HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL, CHIEF JUSTICE

&

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN

W.P.(PIL) Nos.194 & 201 of 2026;

W.P.(PIL) Nos.210 of 2025; & 126 of 2026

Dt: 01.10.2026

kbs