Madhya Pradesh’s 27% OBC quota struck down; High Court finds no basis to exceed the 50% reservation ceiling

The petitions challenged Madhya Pradesh Ordinance No. 2 of 2019 and the Madhya Pradesh Lok Seva (Reservation) Amendment Act, 2019, which increased OBC reservation from 14% to 27%. With SC reservation at 16% and ST reservation at 20%, the total reservation became 63%.

The petitioners challenged the increase in public employment and, in connected matters, in education; they sought restoration of OBC reservation to 14%. Interim orders limited implementation, and the State later directed that recruitment results be divided into an 87% main list and a provisional 13% list.

Whether the 2019 Ordinance and Amendment Act increasing OBC reservation to 27%, taking total reservation beyond 50%, were constitutionally valid.

Whether the State had established extraordinary circumstances justifying departure from the 50% ceiling, and whether its data supported the increased reservation.

Whether the absence of consultation with the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) invalidated the measure.

What relief should follow for appointments made under the impugned law and for the posts kept provisional.

Article 16(4) permits reservation for a backward class that, in the State’s opinion, is inadequately represented, but adequate representation does not mean proportionate representation.

Under Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, reservation under Article 16(4) ordinarily cannot exceed 50%; departure is permissible only in exceptional circumstances, with a special case established and extreme caution exercised.

The Court treated that ceiling as reaffirmed in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India and Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister, and applied Ram Singh v. Union of India for the requirement that relevant data be contemporaneous.

It also relied on Article 335 concerning efficiency in administration and Article 338B(9), which requires consultation with the NCBC on major policy matters affecting socially and educationally backward classes; the State-list exception introduced by Article 342A(3) does not dispense with consultation on other major policy matters.

The Court held that the 1983 Mahajan Commission report was too old to establish conditions in 2019, while the 2023 BRAUSS report was post facto, based on a limited survey of OBC respondents, and did not provide a comparative assessment across social groups.

It considered the material on education, public-service representation and the State’s political and social context, and concluded that the record did not establish exceptional circumstances warranting reservation beyond 50%.

The Court also rejected the argument that the ceiling was merely obiter, finding that Indra Sawhney had expressly addressed the issue and that Jaishri Patil had reaffirmed the governing rule.

It further found that the NCBC had not been consulted on the major policy decision to increase OBC reservation, and treated that omission, together with the evidentiary deficiencies and drafting concerns, as reinforcing the case for interference.

OBC appointments made above 14% up to 27% before 29 September 2022 were saved and could continue; appointments made thereafter in excess of 14% were not protected, and the relevant 13% posts were to be filled from the unreserved category. Recruitment agencies were directed to take the necessary steps within three months.

The connected petitions seeking additional OBC/EWS or horizontal-reservation relief were dismissed.