YSRCP, Left parties flay govt.’s ‘flawed approach’ to BC reservation issue

:

The YSR Congress Party (YSRCP), the CPI and the CPI(M) have criticised the State government following the High Court’s decision to strike down G.O.s 105 and 1065 providing 34% reservation for BCs in rural local bodies and 33.33% in urban local bodies.

YSRCP senior leaders and former Ministers Dharmana Prasada Rao and Chelluboyina Srinivasa Venugopala Krishna said the verdict exposed what they described as the government’s political approach to BC reservations. The court also directed that the local body election process be initiated within six weeks.

Mr. Prasada Rao said the YSRCP had warned that the government orders could face legal hurdles as the aggregate vertical reservations for SCs, STs and BCs ordinarily could not cross the 50% ceiling. He challenged the government to demonstrate its commitment to BC political representation in the forthcoming local elections.

Mr. Venugopala Krishna questioned why the State government had not pursued a constitutional route to protect reservation beyond the existing ceiling, citing Tamil Nadu’s Ninth Schedule model. He also demanded an apology to BCs.

The leaders claimed that the previous YSRCP government had expanded BC representation in political positions, citing nine of the 13 Mayor posts, six of 13 Zilla Parishad chairperson posts and representation in Parliament and the Legislative Council. They demanded that the ruling coalition provide at least 34% representation to BCs in political opportunities and seats.

CPI State secretary G. Eswaraiah demanded 42% reservation for BCs and urged Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu to seek a constitutional and legal framework from the Centre. He also opposed holding local body elections until the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls was completed and final rolls published.

CPI(M) State secretary V. Srinivasa Rao urged the Centre to amend the Constitution to remove the 50% ceiling. He alleged that the government announced 34% reservation despite being aware of the legal constraints and asked why the ruling parties had not pursued a constitutional amendment.