Madhya Pradesh HC Strikes Down 27% OBC Reservation, Restores 14% Quota

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has struck down the State government's decision to increase reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in public employment and higher education from 14% to 27%, holding that the enhanced quota was not supported by the circumstances and data placed before it.

A Division Bench of Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Vinay Saraf delivered the ruling on October 9 while deciding a large batch of petitions, including Ashita Dubey and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others. The petitions challenged the 2019 ordinance and amendment that raised OBC reservation from 14% to 27%.

The Court held that the increase could not be justified under the constitutional framework governing reservation. It said the issue was not whether OBCs were entitled to reservation, but whether the State had established a case for increasing the existing share.

“This case is not about grant of reservation but extent of reservation,” the Bench observed, adding that OBCs were entitled to 14% reservation, but the case did not justify raising it to 27%.

The Court noted that the data relating to higher education and public services indicated that OBCs were adequately represented for the purpose of Article 16(4) of the Constitution. It found no extraordinary conditions or emergent situation warranting departure from the 50% ceiling on reservation recognised by the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India and reiterated in Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister.

The dispute began after Madhya Pradesh issued Ordinance No. 2 of 2019 on March 8, 2019, increasing OBC reservation from 14% to 27%. The State subsequently enacted the Madhya Pradesh Lok Seva (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes Reservation) Amendment Act, 2019. Petitioners argued that the enhanced quota pushed total reservation beyond the 50% limit and violated constitutional guarantees, including equality and equal opportunity in public employment.

The lead petition, Ashita Dubey and Others, arose in the context of medical admissions. The petitioners, who belonged to the general category and had appeared for NEET-PG 2019, challenged the change shortly before counselling was due to begin. Similar petitions followed, raising questions concerning recruitment, admissions and the implementation of the revised quota.

The Bench found that the 2019 ordinance and amendment had been introduced without sufficient justification for increasing the percentage. It also referred to shortcomings in the legislative process and drafting, observing that the measure appeared to have been prepared in undue haste. On a cumulative assessment, the Court declared the ordinance and amendment unconstitutional and struck down the 2019 Amendment Act.

The ruling also addresses the impact on appointments already made. The Court protected OBC appointments made under the enhanced quota up to September 29, 2022, when the State's General Administration Department clarified the position regarding interim relief. Such appointees will not be removed, and the additional posts will be adjusted in the next three recruitment drives.

However, appointments made after September 29, 2022, beyond the 14% OBC quota, were held liable to be treated as null and void to the extent of the excess. The Court directed the relevant recruiting agencies, including the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission and the Employees’ Selection Board, to declare results accordingly and fill the affected 13% posts from the unreserved category.

The Court said petitions challenging the 2019 amendment stood allowed, while connected petitions seeking additional OBC or Economically Weaker Sections reservation and raising horizontal reservation issues were treated as dismissed in view of the decision.

It restores the earlier 14% position for OBC reservation in public services and higher education, while distinguishing protected past appointments from later appointments made under the enhanced quota.

The petitioners were represented by several senior advocates, including Aman Lekhi, Gopal Shankarnarayan, Pradeep Sancheti, Ankur Chibbar, Aparajita Singh, Shobha Gupta and Aditya Sanghi, along with other counsel. The State was represented by Senior Advocate and Additional Solicitor General K. M. Nataraj, Advocate General Prashant Singh and other government counsel.

Case Title: Ashita Dubey and Others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others with connected matters

Date of Order: October 9, 2026

Bench: Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Vinay Saraf