Case at a Glance
In 2019 Madhya Pradesh raised reservation for Other Backward Classes in public services from 14% to 27%, first by Ordinance No. 2 of 2019 and then by an Amendment Act, taking total vertical reservation to 63%. After hearing about 90 connected writ petitions, a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court struck down the Ordinance and the Amendment Act, holding that the State had shown no extraordinary circumstances to breach the 50% ceiling of Indra Sawhney, relied on outdated 1983 data and a limited post facto survey, and failed to consult the National Commission for Backward Classes. OBCs are entitled to 14%. Appointments made up to 29 September 2022 were saved, but OBC appointments above 14% after that date were declared void and the 13% posts directed to be filled by unreserved candidates within three months.
Madhya Pradesh promulgated Ordinance No. 2 of 2019 on 8 March 2019, later replaced by the M.P. Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Jan Jatiyon aur Anya Pichhde Vargon ke Liye Arakshan) Sanshodhan Adhiniyam, 2019, amending Section 4(2) of the 1994 Act to raise OBC reservation from 14% to 27%. With 16% for Scheduled Castes and 20% for Scheduled Tribes, total reservation became 63%. Petitions also challenged an MPPSC advertisement of 14 November 2019, a corrigendum of 19 November 2019, a 2 July 2019 circular and a guideline of 10 January 2020 providing 27% OBC and 10% EWS reservation. In 2014, in Manish Mishra v. State of M.P., the High Court had quashed an earlier 2003 resolution raising the OBC quota to 27%.
Interim orders had limited OBC reservation in admissions to 14% (19 March 2019) and permitted selections without final appointments (31 January 2020). A General Administration Department letter of 29 September 2022 directed results to be declared in two parts — 87% of posts declared and 13% kept provisional. The petitioners argued that the 27% quota breached the 50% ceiling without any empirical study, that the State relied on the 1983 Mahajan Commission report and a 2023 survey covering only OBC respondents, and that the National Commission for Backward Classes was not consulted under Article 338B(9). The State relied on M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 10 SC CK 0096 and on demographic data suggesting OBCs form roughly half the population.
The Key Question Before the Court
Could Madhya Pradesh validly raise OBC reservation from 14% to 27%, taking total reservation to 63%, without contemporaneous quantifiable data or extraordinary circumstances justifying a breach of the 50% ceiling?
No extraordinary circumstances, no contemporaneous data
Writing for the Bench, Justice Anand Pathak recalled the Constituent Assembly debates, noting that Dr. Ambedkar “clarified the position that reservation must be confined to a minority of seats”, and concluded that affirmative action is meant for “limited/minority of seats, temporal in nature and giving sufficient space to merit in major proportion.” Relying on M. Nagaraj v. Union of India and Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister, (2021) 05 SC CK 0014, the Court held that “contemporaneous quantifiable data is to be collected for ascertaining backwardness and inadequacy of representation.” It quoted Ram Singh v. Union of India: “Outdated statistics cannot provide accurate parameters for measuring backwardness.” The 1983 Mahajan Commission data “cannot be held to be relevant at this point of time”, given population growth and the State’s bifurcation in 2000.
The 2023 survey relied on by the State was post facto, covered around 10,000 people with fewer than 5,000 responses, and surveyed only OBC respondents; “the limited extent of the survey conducted renders the report vulnerable”, and a one-group survey makes comparison remote. The Court also noted that, with no caste census since Independence, population figures for all categories are “tentative and approximate”. Applying the 50% ceiling in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, (1992) 11 SC CK 0030, it found no extraordinary circumstances to exceed it, and held that the failure to consult the National Commission for Backward Classes on a major policy matter showed undue haste. To avoid upsetting settled appointments, the Court relied on Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao v. State of A.P. to save appointments made up to 29 September 2022.
What the Court Actually Held
- M.P. Ordinance No. 2 of 2019 and the Amendment Act, 2019, raising OBC reservation from 14% to 27%, are ultra vires and struck down; OBCs are entitled to reservation “to the extent of 14%, 14% not 27%.”
- Appointments made under the Act up to 29 September 2022 stand; OBC candidates appointed above 14% in that window keep their jobs, and those posts are to be adjusted in the next three recruitment drives.
- OBC appointments above 14% made after 29 September 2022 are null and void; the 13% posts are to be filled by unreserved category candidates, with MPPSC and other recruiting agencies to complete appointments and declare results within three months as an outer limit.
- The petitions challenging the 2019 Act were allowed; petitions seeking additional OBC-plus-EWS and horizontal reservation were treated as dismissed, and all matters disposed of.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It directly affects thousands of candidates in Madhya Pradesh recruitments, including the results kept provisional since 2022.
- It reaffirms that states must produce contemporaneous, comparative quantifiable data to justify reservation beyond 50%.
- Its cut-off date approach shows how courts balance constitutional limits with protection of settled appointments.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Candidates
- If you were appointed before 29 September 2022, the judgment protects your appointment.
- Unreserved candidates in the provisional 13% lists should watch for MPPSC and Employees’ Selection Board results within the three-month outer limit.
- Further appeals to the Supreme Court are possible, so track any stay or modification.
For Counsel
- Reservation above 50% needs extraordinary circumstances backed by contemporaneous quantifiable data; outdated commission reports will not suffice.
- A survey limited to the beneficiary group may be held inadequate because it permits no comparison.
- Raise non-consultation with the National Commission for Backward Classes as a ground; the Court treated it as showing undue haste.
Key Takeaways
- MP’s 2019 law raising OBC reservation to 27% has been struck down; OBC reservation is 14%.
- The 50% ceiling was breached without extraordinary circumstances or current data.
- Appointments made up to 29 September 2022 are saved; later excess OBC appointments are void.
- The 13% provisional posts are to go to unreserved candidates within three months.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the OBC reservation in Madhya Pradesh after this judgment?
The High Court held that OBCs are entitled to reservation to the extent of 14%, not 27%, after striking down the 2019 Ordinance and Amendment Act.
Will OBC candidates already appointed lose their jobs?
Appointments made up to 29 September 2022 are saved, and such posts are to be adjusted in the next three recruitment drives. OBC appointments above 14% made after that date were declared null and void.
Did the Court decide the validity of the 10% EWS quota?
The judgment, as read, does not contain a separate holding on EWS validity; petitions seeking additional OBC-plus-EWS and horizontal reservation were treated as dismissed.
Conclusion
The judgment is a reminder that reservation policy must rest on current, comparative data, not decades-old reports. By striking down the 27% quota while protecting appointments made before the 2022 cut-off, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has tried to restore the constitutional ceiling without unsettling those already in service.
Practical takeaway: Candidates and recruiting agencies in Madhya Pradesh should plan on 14% OBC reservation and watch for the three-month timeline for filling the 13% provisional posts, subject to any order of the Supreme Court.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com