The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Friday struck down a 2019 State law that had increased reservation for the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category from 14% to 27%, holding that the government could not demonstrate any “extraordinary conditions or emergent situations” to breach the 50% ceiling on reservation.
A Division Bench of Justices Anand Pathak and Vinay Saraf in Jabalpur, in a 159-page order, termed the Madhya Pradesh Public Service (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Amendment Act, 2019, brought during the 15-month Congress government of former Chief Minister Kamal Nath, as “unconstitutional”. It also directed the State recruitment authorities to fill the 13% posts, which have been on hold since September 2022 in all government jobs, with unreserved candidates within three months based on the already existing selection lists.
The High Court judgment came after years of hearing on a number of petitions filed by students from unreserved categories, who had challenged the Amendment Act of August 2019, which had followed an ordinance brought in by Mr. Nath’s government in March that year.
While the matter remained sub judice, various recruitment drives in the State faced court stays, prompting the State Government in September 2022, then run by the BJP, to come up with an 87:13 formula, which was approved by the High Court. This allowed recruitment on 87% of vacancies while putting the remaining 13% on hold till the matter was resolved. At present, two separate lists from the lower portion of the successful merit list – one of unreserved and one of OBC candidates – are prepared for the 13% posts and withheld, only to be released once the case is settled.
The court, however, said that appointments made with 27% reservation between March 2019 and September 2022 will remain safe.
‘Part of the mainstream’
Terming the law a case of “extent of reservation”, the High Court said, “On the basis of data available in higher education and public services as demonstrated in earlier paragraphs and tables, it appears the OBCs are adequately represented as per Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India. They are, very much, part of the mainstream.”
The High Court also took note of the Supreme Court rulings in the Indra Sawhney and Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil cases and said that “no extraordinary conditions or emergent situations” existed in the government’s case.
“This case is not about grant of reservation but extent of reservation. OBCs are certainly entitled to get reservation to the extent of 14%. However, a case is not made out for increasing the reservation from 14% to 27%. Therefore, the ceiling limit of 50%, as fixed by the Supreme Court of India, is to be adhered to. Thus, OBCs are entitled for reservation to the extent of 14%, not 27%, in public services and higher education,” the order read.
The High Court also highlighted various government datasets, saying that the OBCs “in addition to their reservation quota (14%), are securing approximately 50% of open competition seats” in the State.
“For context, in the State of Madhya Pradesh, a total of 60% of seats are reserved for SC, ST, OBC and Economically Weaker Section categories, leaving 40% in the open category. The data indicates that OBCs are securing 14% of seats through their reservation quota and the remaining 20% from open competition,” it said.
The court also noted that Madhya Pradesh is politically dominated by the OBCs. “That data, coupled with the fact that the State is politically dominated by OBCs, with four Chief Ministers in regular succession, one after another, and more than 25% of Ministers and MLAs are from the OBC category, no case is made out to harp over inadequacy of representation in political, educational, economic, or social fields. All parameters demonstrate adequacy of representation and even advancement of status overall. Such welcome steps are to be celebrated, rather than lamented. Much has been done. Still, much is to be done. However, differently,” it said.
Senior Advocate Aman Lekhi, appearing for the petitioners, also argued that the 2019 law “was not a legitimate object but a clear case of electoral opportunism and vote-bank politics” as it had been brought just a day before the imposition of the model code of conduct for the 2019 Lok Sabha election.
OBCs form more than 50% of the State’s population.Both the BJP and the Congress reacted to the court’s order saying that they remained firm on securing 27% reservation for the community, while blaming each other for the collapse of the government’s case.
Published – October 10, 2026 01:46 am IST
