MP CM Mohan Yadav Consults Solicitor General, Advocate General After High Court Strikes Down 27% OBC Quota

Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Mohan Yadav has said he held detailed consultations with the country’s top law officers on the High Court ruling that struck down the State’s decision to raise OBC reservation from 14% to 27%, indicating that the government is now charting its next legal move.

In a post on X, the Chief Minister said he met Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Advocate General Prashant Singh in New Delhi. According to the post, the discussion covered “the legal aspects connected to the Hon’ble High Court’s decision on OBC reservation” and the strategy for forthcoming legal proceedings.

The post did not spell out what course the State will take, including whether it intends to approach the Supreme Court. Its reference to forthcoming legal proceedings, however, suggests the government is weighing further steps after the setback in the High Court.

The meeting follows the October 9 judgment of a Division Bench of Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Vinay Saraf, which held that the enhanced quota was not supported by the circumstances and data placed before the Court. The Advocate General had appeared for the State during the hearing.

Background

The dispute dates back to March 8, 2019, when Madhya Pradesh issued Ordinance No. 2 of 2019 increasing OBC reservation in public employment and higher education from 14% to 27%. The State later enacted the Madhya Pradesh Lok Seva (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes Reservation) Amendment Act, 2019, to give effect to the change.

The lead petition, Ashita Dubey and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, arose from 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 on recruitment and admissions.

Petitioners argued that the higher quota pushed total reservation beyond the 50% limit and violated the constitutional guarantee of equality and equal opportunity in public employment. They were represented by senior advocates including Aman Lekhi, Gopal Shankarnarayanan, Pradeep Sancheti, Ankur Chibbar and Aparajita Singh.

The High Court agreed. It stressed that the question was not whether OBCs deserve reservation but whether the State had justified increasing their 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%.

Examining data on higher education and public services, the Court found OBCs adequately represented for the purpose of Article 16(4) of the Constitution. It saw no extraordinary conditions or emergent situation warranting a departure from the 50% ceiling recognised in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India and reiterated in Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister. The Bench also pointed to shortcomings in the legislative process and drafting, observing that the measure appeared to have been prepared in undue haste. Declaring the ordinance and the 2019 Amendment Act unconstitutional, it struck them down.

The ruling also deals with appointments already made. OBC appointments made under the enhanced quota up to September 29, 2022, the date on which the General Administration Department clarified the position on interim relief, were protected. Those appointees will not be removed, and the additional posts will be adjusted in the next three recruitment drives.

Appointments made after that date beyond the 14% OBC quota, however, were held liable to be treated as null and void to the extent of the excess. Recruiting agencies, including the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission and the Employees’ Selection Board, were directed to declare results accordingly and fill the affected 13% posts from the unreserved category.

Petitions challenging the 2019 amendment were allowed, while connected petitions seeking additional OBC or Economically Weaker Sections reservation, and those raising horizontal reservation issues, were treated as dismissed in view of the decision. The ruling restores the earlier 14% position for OBC reservation in public services and higher education.

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

Judgment Date: October 9, 2026

Bench: Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Vinay Saraf