Ashita Dubey & Ors. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

Per: Justice Anand Pathak

I.A. No.5321/2023, is an application for constitution of a Special Bench in respect of hearing these matters.

This application was filed by the intervener-Akhil Bhartiya OBC Mahasabha in W.P. No.5901/2019 on 18/09/2023 for constitution of Special Bench.

The matter travelled to different benches and in some benches, the matter was heard at length, however, hearing was not concluded due to some disruptions and/or the fact that matter was pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thereafter, the matter was heard by the Division Bench headed by the then Hon'ble the Chief Justice before he is elevated as the Judge, Supreme Court of India on 2^nd June, 2026. Thereafter, Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice, nominated this Bench to hear these matters vide Administrative Order dated 15/06/2026.

With the consent of all the parties, the matter was heard at length for 15 days (comprising of 30 hours of hearing). Therefore, this application (I.A. No.5321/2023) has no meaning at fag end. Hence rejected.

Regard being had to the similitude of the issue involved in these cases, all the Writ Petitions were heard analogously at length with the consent of counsel for all the parties and are decided by this common order. However, for factual clarity, facts of Writ Petition No.5901/2019 (Ashita Dubey and Others Vs. State of M.P. and Others) are taken into consideration.

Several bunch of Writ Petitions are being filed challenging the M.P. Ordinance No.2 of 2019 dated 08/03/2019 as well as the M.P. Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Jan Jatiyon aur Anya Pichhde Varon Ke Liye Arakshan) Sanshodhan Adhiniyam, 2019 (hereinafter referred as the 'Act of 2019') seeking the said Act of 2019 as illegal and ultra vires to the Constitution of India.

Alongwith W.P. No.5901/2019, some other Writ Petitions, which challenge '27% of the OBC Reservation' are filed. These petitions are as under:-1. WP-5901/2019 1.1 WP-10310/2019 1.2 WP-11330/2019 1.3 WP-16552/2019 1.5 WP-21292/2019 1.6 WP--25181/2019 1.7 WP-25341/2019 1.8 WP-27154/2019 1. WP-5901/2019 1.1 WP-10310/2019 1.2 WP-11330/2019 1.3 WP-16552/2019 1.10 WP-3937/2020 1.11 WP-4203/2020 1.12 WP-4523/2020 1.13 WP-5110/2020 1.14 WP-6202/2020 1.17 WP-8378/2020 1.19 WP-8923/2020 1.20 WP-8930/2020 1.21 WP-9328/2020 1.23 WP-12049/2020 1.24 WP-16223/2020 1.25 WP-20093/2020 1.26 WP-494/2021 1.28 WP-6683/2021 1.32 WP-20838/2021 1.33 WP-23252/2021 1.35 WP-25645/2021 1.36 WP-25924/2021 1.38 WP-26254/2021 1.39 WP-28853/2021 1.40 WP-1969/2022 1.41 WP-2927/2022 1.42 WP-2928/2022 1.44 WP-3668/2022 1.45 WP-3750/2022 1.46 WP-3833/2022 1.47 WP-6114/2022 1.48 WP-6115/2022 1.49 WP-6346/2022 1.50 WP-28322/2022 1.51 WP-28809/2022 1.52 WP-29444/2022 1.53 WP-30204/2022 1.60 WP-27163/2022 1.69 WP-30186/2022 1.55 WP-3893/2023 1.56 WP-3896/2023 1.57 WP-6257/2023 1.58 WP-7554/2023 1.59 WP-17670/2023 1.61 WP-9901/2023 1.62 WP-9892/2023 1.63 WP-5900/2023 1.64 WP-9813/2023 1.65 WP-16507/2023 1.66 WP-4757/2023 1.67 WP-3998/2023 1.68 WP-5014/2023 1.70 WP-9910/2023 1.71 WP-870/2023 1.72 WP-11155/2023 1.73 WP-5596/2024 1.74 WP-6415/2024 1.75 WP-8967/2024 1.76 WP-21074/2024 1.77 WP-28195/2024 1.78 WP-30487/2024 1.79 WP-40528/2024 1.80 WP-41682/2024 1.81 WP-41868/2024 1.82 WP-6654/2025 1.83 WP-8296/2025 1.84 WP-17785/2025 1.85 WP-37582/2025 1.86 WP-10612/2026 1.87 WP-15832/2026 1.89 WP-16732/2026 1.90 WP-16735/2026 1.91 WP-27335/2026 1.92 WP-27574/2026 1.93 WP-27580/2026 1.94 WP-27862/2026 In these writ petitions following reliefs (collectively) are sought:-

Another group of Writ Petitions is filed, which challenges both 'OBC' as well as 'EWS' Reservation'. These Petitions are as under:-1.9 WP-3757/2020 1.15 WP-6248/2020 1.22 WP-9655/2020 1.27 WP-5298/2021 1.31 WP-21016/2021 1.34 WP-24919/2021 1.43 WP-3013/2022 1.54 WP-2760/2023 In these Writ Petitions, following reliefs are sought:-

One Writ Petition is filed in respect of 'Horizontal Reservation as well as 27% OBC Reservation':- 1.16 WP NO. 6712/2020 Reliefs sought in this petition are as under:-

Petitioners are the students of MBBS Course and are aspirants for the NEET (PG) Examination, 2019. Petitioners have collectively filed this writ petition. Petitioners appeared in NEET (PG) Examination, 2019 held in the month of January, 2019. Petitioner no.1 got All India Rank (AIR) 6913, similarly, petitioners no.2 & 3 also cleared the examination with good marks. All the petitioners belong to 'General Category' and they had to appear in the counseling. Process of counseling had to be started from 14.03.2019. Meanwhile, it appears that vide Ordinance No.2 of 2019 (vide Annexure P/4 of the Writ Petition No.5901/2019), Government of Madhya Pradesh brought an amendment by way of Gazette Notification dated 08/03/2019 by which reservation to the 'OBC Category' raised to the extent of 27% instead of existing 14%. Later on Amendment Act was passed. This is the bone of contention.

After the amendment dated 08/03/2019, reservation at the time of counseling, raised upto 27%, which according to the petitioners exceeded 50% ceiling as prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sawhney and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, reported in 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217. Thus, petitioners challenge vires of the Ordinance dated 08.03.2019 as well as The M.P. Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Jan Jatiyon aur Anya Pichhde Vargo Ke Liye Arakshan) Sansodhan Adhiniyam, 2019.

In 1994, the Government of Madhya Pradesh enacted an Act called 'The Madhya Pradesh Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Janjatiyon aur Anya Pichhade Vargon ke Liye Aarakshan) Adhiniyam, 1994 (hereinafter referred as 'Act of 1994'). This act was framed to provide reservation for the vacancies in public services in favour of the persons belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes of the citizens and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. By this act as per Section 4, fixation of percentage for reservation of posts and standard of evaluation were prescribed.

It further appears that the said Act of 1994 was amended vide Madhya Pradesh Lok Sewa (Anusuchit Jatiyo, Anusuchit Janjatiyo aur anya Pichhda Vargo ke liye Arakshan) Sansothan Adhiniyam, 2002 (for brevity referred as the “Amendment Act, 2002”). Some of the Sections of the Principal Act were amended through the said Amendment Act, 2002. That Act never received Presidential Assent. It further appears that on the basis of said Act of 1994 and Amendment Act of 2002, General Administration Department of Government of Madhya Pradesh issued a Resolution dated 30.06.2003 whereby reservation for the persons belonging to 'OBC' for public employment, was enhanced from 14% to 27%. The effect of the aforesaid resolution was that the percentage for reservation for the members belonging to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes/Other Backward Classes for Public Employment rose to the extent of 63% in total.

A Writ Petition No.2798/2003 (Manish Mishra and Others Vs. State of M.P. and Others) was preferred and vide order dated 13.10.2014, the said resolution was quashed and the writ petition was allowed. The SLP against said order is pending consideration before the Supreme Court.

Thereafter, in 2019, by the Act of 2019, again reservation was prescribed for 'OBCs' from existing 14% to 27%, therefore, bunch of writ petitions were preferred, as referred above. Categorization of the petitions is already referred in the preceding paragraphs for factual clarity.

It appears that vide order dated 19.03.2019, then Division Bench of this Court after hearing the matters, as a measure of interim relief, directed that the respondents/ State shall not provide reservation for more than 14% for the 'OBC Category' Candidates in the admissions made to the colleges on the strength of Ordinance No. 2 of 2019, which was subject matter of those petitions at that point of time.

On 28.01.2020, the interim relief was directed to be continued. On 31.01.2020, at the request of Advocate General of the State, it was clarified for the Public Service Commission to proceed for selection of the candidates as per the notification, but the Public Service Commission was directed not to finalize or make any appointments on that basis without seeking prior permission from the Court. On 29th September, 2022 a letter was issued by the General Administration Department addressing to the Secretary, M.P. Public Service Commission, in which it has been directed that looking to the interim relief granted by the Court, result of the examination would be declared in two parts:-

In one part, result would be declared for 87% posts, which were not in point of dispute.

Another list was to be published as provisional list for the remaining 13% posts. In said 13% list, candidates of 'Unreserved Category' as well as 'OBC Category' were directed to be incorporated in two separate lists, so that after decision in these petitions, those 13% (either OBC or UR) would be appointed against those posts as per the judgment.

Per contra, respondents opposed the contentions and the grounds raised by the petitioners by filing reply.

On behalf of the petitioners opposing 27% reservation for the OBC Candidates, and on behalf of the respondents/State opposing the petitioners' claim as well as some counsel appearing in support of OBC reservation, all argued their case at length.

Shri Lekhi, with his vehemence and eloquence, termed the act of passing the Amendment Act, 2019, as Electoral Gerrymandering or Gerrymandering of Welfare.

The Ordinance dated 09.03.2019, was brought just a day before the Model Code of Conduct (for the General Elections of 2019) became effective. The timing of the Ordinance clearly suggests that the real reason for bringing this measure was not a legitimate object but a clear case of electoral opportunism and vote-bank politics. The constitutional principle was sacrificed at the altar of political expediency.

As submitted, Article 213 of the Constitution deals with the power to promulgate an Ordinance and requires satisfaction of there being circumstances which render it necessary for the Governor to take “immediate action”. The expression “necessary,” coupled with “immediate action,” requires that the promulgation of an Ordinance be imperative due to an emergent situation when the Legislature is not in session. There was no emergent situation justifying the promulgation of the Ordinance. Therefore, according to the Senior Counsel, the absence of any urgency, unforeseen contingency, or sudden exigency indicates that constitutional discipline was altogether disregarded.

The sheet-anchor of the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner was the discussion of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney & Others Vs. Union of India & Others, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217. {In fact, all other counsel also relied on Indra Sawhney (supra)}, and the ratio established therein, reiterated by the Supreme Court in Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil & Anr. Vs. Chief Minister & Ors., (2021) 8 SCC 1. While referring to different paragraphs of Indra Sawhney (supra), and Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil (supra), it was vehemently argued that the 50% ceiling limit for reservation cannot be breached and that a strict rule becomes imperative. While relying upon paragraphs 810 of the judgment rendered in the case of Indra Sawhney (supra), it is the submission of learned senior counsel that unless an empirical study based upon geographical location, tribal ecosystem, and historical reasons is carried out, a case cannot be made out for breaching the extraordinary constitutional ceiling of 50%.

While dealing with M. Nagaraj & Others Vs. Union of India & Others, (2006) 8 SCC 212, and S.V. Joshi & Others Vs. State of Karnataka & Others, (2012) 7 SCC 41, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil (supra), held that the Constitution Bench has not laid down any proposition to the effect that if the State wants to exceed 50% reservation, then, it is required to base its decision on quantifiable data. On the contrary, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj (supra) reiterated the numerical benchmark like 50% rule laid down in Indra Sawhney (supra). While referring to paragraph 122 of M. Nagaraj (supra), it is submitted that the ceiling limit of 50%, the concept of the creamy layer, and the compelling reasons, namely backwardness, inadequacy of representation, and the concept of administrative efficiency, are all constitutional requirements, without which the structure of equality of opportunity under Article 16 would collapse.

Article 16(4) is a facet of Article 16(1), and the reason for limiting reservation to 50% because of the “special provision”, which is inconsonance with the rule of Indra Sawhney. The judgment in the case of Ashoka Kumar Thakur Vs. Union of India & Others, (2008) 6 SCC 1, was also pressed into service to submit that the cap on percentage is a constitutional requirement and the rule in Indra Sawhney (supra) has been repeatedly followed. Reliance placed over the arguments surfaced in Jarnail Singh & Ors. Vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Ors., (2022) 10 SCC 595 and Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra, , wherein the Apex Court rejected the argument to refer the judgment rendered in Indra Sawhney (supra) to a larger Bench, wherein the ceiling of 50% is upheld.

It is also the submission of learned Senior Counsel that the structural integration of OBCs has been carried out in society in Madhya Pradesh and OBCs are at the central point of power in the State of Madhya Pradesh. They have significant numerical representation (5 Chief Ministers in last 20 years). Significant percentage in the Council of Ministers, and about 27% of the total members in the Legislative Assembly. The OBCs have exercised tremendous political influence. It is most evident in the instant case when there is cross-party solidarity to increase the reservation to 27%. It is obvious that they are not marginalized and are in the mainstream. They are actually insiders to power.

The 50% ceiling limit is a numerical rule of constitutional principle of balance, and the exception to the said cap, while seemingly permissive, is actually limited and fenced, being narrow and fact-driven where there is an extraordinary situation. Backwardness will justify reservation, but not breach of the 50% limit. Therefore, no circumstance exists substantiating the contention that OBCs are peripheral and not in the mainstream of the political, economic, or social fabric of the mainstream. Therefore, no extraordinary circumstance exists as described in para 810 of Indra Sawhney (supra).

It is the submission of learned senior counsel that when, through different statistical figures, it is established that OBCs are in the mainstream of Madhya Pradesh and are adequately represented in all spheres of life, then breach of the ceiling cannot be undertaken. He also raised the point regarding proportionality vis a vis adequacy. The lack of rational connection with the object sought to be achieved was also raised, and the cases of Modern Dental College and Research Centre & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors, (2016) 7 SCC 353, K.S. Puttaswamy Vs. Union of India & Ors, (2019) 1 SCC 1, and Anuradha Bhasin Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2020) 3 SCC 637, were relied upon.

Learned senior counsel also referred to the clumsy and slipshod drafting of the Amendment Act of 2019 to exude impression that the impugned amendment is governed according to whims and not by rule, and is born out of sheer irrationality. As submitted, the Amendment Act of 2019 intends to amend the Act of 1994. By the said intended amendment, the amendment in sub-clause (a) and sub-clause (b) of Clause 1 of sub-section 2 of Section 4 of the Principal Act was to be made. However, the draftsman ignored the fact that Section 4(2)(1) was amended in 2002 by the Amendment Act of 2002, and Clauses (a) and (b) of the original Act ( Act of 1994), were merged into Clause 1. Consequently, the sub-categories under sub-clauses (a) and (b) ceased to exist. The amendment in 2019, therefore, was made to those provisions which were not in existence.

Learned Senior Counsel in precise and luculent manner referred to the background of the Amendment Act, 2019. The Madhya Pradesh Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusushit Janjatiyon Aur Anya Pichhade Vargon Ke Liye Arakshan) Adhiniyam, 1994, provided for reservation of vacancies in public services and posts under Section 4(2) of the 1994 Act in the following manner:-

On 19.09.1995, the State legislature of Madhya Pradesh passed the 1995 Amendment Bill, proposing to increase reservation to:-

The 1995 Amendment Bill was sent back by the President under Article 254(2), with a message to limit overall reservation to 50%. However, again on 16.04.2002, the said State Legislature of Madhya Pradesh passed the 2002 Amendment Act, by way of which Section 4(2) of the 1994 Act was amended and reservation was increased to 50%.

It appears that on 27.11.2002, the State Legislature of Madhya Pradesh passed the Second 2002 Amendment Bill, increasing reservation again to 63%. However, after reservation for consideration of the President under Article 254(2), the assent was not received. Thereafter, the Second 2002 Amendment Bill was passed again as the 2003 Amendment Bill. By way of resolution dated 30.06.2003, the State of Madhya Pradesh increased reservation for OBCs from 14% to 27%, thereby taking overall reservation to 63%. However, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, on 13.10.2014, in W.P. No. 2798 of 2003 (Manish Mishra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh), set aside the resolution dated 30.06.2003 for being ultra vires the 1994 Act and contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sawhney (supra). The State of Madhya Pradesh challenged the decision in S.L.P. (C) No. 21195 of 2015, and the same is pending consideration.

On 08.03.2019, the State Government issued Ordinance No. 2 of 2019, amending Section 4(2) of the 1994 Act and increasing reservation for OBCs from 14% to 27%. As a result, the total reservation increased to 63% (SC -16%, ST -20%, and OBC - 27%). On 14.08.2019, the Ordinance was passed as the impugned 2019 Amendment Act. The Ordinance and the Amendment Act are under challenge.

It is the submission of learned Senior Counsel that 50% ceiling limit prescribed by the Supreme Court has been in existence for 120 years and has remained a measure of equity. On 26.07.1902, it was Maharaja Shahu of Kolhapur who enacted the first reservation law in the country. This law provided that 50% of all vacancies, that arise, would be filled up by backward classes, clearly with a view that the rights of other candidates be also reasonably balanced.

It is the consistent view of the Supreme Court that reservation provisions and affirmative action contemplated under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) must be within reasonable limits, so as to ensure that the interests of weaker sections of society are adjusted with the interests of the community as a whole. Learned Counsel relied upon the judgments delivered in the cases of Indra Sawhney (supra), and Jaishri Patil (supra). He also referred to different judgments where the 50% limit has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in several other Constitution Bench judgments, including:

A chart was provided which shows exhaustive 55 cases of the Supreme Court where the Court has sustained application of the 50% ceiling limit:

As submitted, High Courts of Andhra Pradesh (2005), Bombay (2014 & 2015), Chhattisgarh (2019), Gujarat (2016), Punjab & Haryana (2015, 2016 & 2017), Madhya Pradesh (2019 & 2020), Rajasthan (2010, 2016 & 2018), and Bihar (2014 & 2024) have repeatedly applied the 50% rule. As submitted, in most of these cases, the special leave petitions against those judgments have already been dismissed by the Supreme Court. Despite the same, the justification of the State is primarily based on demographic data, showing OBCs constituting a significant portion of the State population. According to various sources, OBCs constitute approximately 50 to 52% of the State population. This remains the only justification for breaching the 50% limit.

While relying upon the Constitution Bench judgment in Jaishri Patil (supra), it is submitted that the theory of reservation exceeding 50% on the basis of the population of the backward class, as 85%, was rejected by the Constitution Bench. “Adequate” representation under Article 16(4) does not mean “proportionate” representation. The judgment rendered in the case of Jarnail Singh (supra), was also pressed into service.

One of the prime arguments of Shri Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Senior Advocate was the ground of non-consultation with the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) before proceeding with the prescription of reservation. It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel that the 102nd Amendment was introduced on 15.08.2018. It, inter alia, introduced Article 338B and set up the National Commission for Backward Classes as a constitutional body.

Under Article 338B(5)(d), the Commission has a duty to advise on the socio-economic development of Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes and to evaluate the socio-economic development under the Union or in the State. Under Article 338B(9), the Union and every State Government was required to consult the Commission on all major policies affecting Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes. In Jaishri Patil (supra), consultation with the Commission was held to be mandatory and must be effective and meaningful. In Pattali Makkal Katchi Vs. A. Mayilerumperumal & Ors., (2023) 7 SCC 481 (paragraphs 101 and 103), the Supreme Court held that disregarding the mandatory consultation provision under Article 338B(9) would render the legislation void.

The 105th Constitution Amendment was introduced on 15.09.2021, which mandates that under Article 342A(3), the State or Union Territory may prepare a list of socially and educationally backward classes for their own purpose, entries in which may be different from the Central List, whereas the proviso to Article 338B(9) does not mandate consultation with the NCBC of the State for preparation and maintenance of the list of OBCs for the State, but the requirement to consult the Commission on all other major policy matters continue. Major policy matters include the issue of providing OBC reservation over and above the 50% ceiling limit. In the present case, no consultation with the NCBC was carried out. Same is fatal.

Neither consultation with the NCBC was carried out, nor the State carried out contemporaneous survey before taking the decision to increase the quantum of reservation. The report is based on the 1983 Mahajan Commission Report, which is more than 40 years old and in no manner could be said to disclose the information which would be relevant for determining the backwardness and adequacy of representation of a particular community as on the passing of the Amendment Act. He prayed for setting aside of the impugned Amendment Act being ultra vires the Constitution.

Shri Sancheti, apparently master of statistical representation and numerical data, submits that the State of Madhya Pradesh relied upon two reports:

The recommendation of the State Backward Class Commission dated 09.06.1997, as also that of 2019-2020, are in turn based on the Mahajan Commission Report, 1983, and is not based on any fresh collection of data for this purpose. Therefore, there is no question of any analysis of such fresh data, which was neither surveyed nor collected. Therefore, it is the submission of learned Senior Counsel that, while considering the aspect in terms of grant of reservation to backward classes, the information and data collected has to be contemporaneous and not outdated. He relied upon Ram Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India, (2015) 4 SCC 697.

In these two reports, there is no assessment or conclusion to even suggest that OBCs at large should be considered as falling in exceptional circumstances and extraordinary situations as contemplated in para 810 of Indra Sawhney.

The recommendation, as well as the affidavit of the State, proceeded on the premise that the judgment in the case of M. Nagaraj (supra) supports the view that quantifiable data collected by the State indicating backwardness on educational, economic, and social criteria is a good reason and can form the basis for exceeding 50% reservation. However, this approach is erroneous, and this aspect has been expressly considered in the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Jaishri Patil, where a similar approach adopted by the Backward Classes Commission in Maharashtra (and the Bombay High Court) was held to be expressly incorrect approach based on a misreading of the ratio of M. Nagaraj (supra) case. He relied upon paras 16, 462, 464, 470, 477, and 478 of Jaishri Patil (supra) Constitution Bench. He also relied upon the judgment of Chhattisgarh High Court in W.P.(Civil) No. 591/2012( para 84).

As submitted, the population of the State of Madhya Pradesh has gone up from approximately 5.21 crore (1983) to 7.26 crore (2011), and the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh has been bifurcated into Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh in the year 2000. Thus, the survey conducted in 1983 cannot be held to be relevant at this point of time.

Learned counsel also raised doubt over the composition of the Mahajan Commission, which comprised largely of the political class without any expert whereas, in para 847 of Indra Sawhney (supra), it is held that there ought to be a permanent body in the nature of a Commission or Tribunal, and the body must be composed of experts in the field, both official or non-official, and must be vested with the necessary power to make proper and effective inquiry. Therefore, measuring from that yardstick, the composition of the Mahajan Committee does not qualify to be having the status of a Backward Classes Commission. He referred to Section 3 of the Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1993 and the provisions of Madhya Pradesh State Backward Classes Commission Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as OBC Commission Act) to bring home the analogy that experts are required to be included in the composition of the Commission.

The 2023, BRAUSS report, is a post facto report, and the said report cannot lend credence or support to the said decision to grant reservation beyond 50%. As per the BRAUSS report they have surveyed approximately 10,000 people in the entire State (as against a population of around 7.26 crore). Thus, the survey is of a very insignificant number (0.00014%), and that too, out of 10,000 people, less than 5,000 people responded. Another peculiar feature of this survey was that the survey was of persons, citizens, or individuals coming from the OBC category. Therefore, this survey is not a comprehensive survey of the population of other categories. This survey cannot provide any data for comparison between different categories of citizens, such as SC, ST, OBC, and General Category. In the absence of comparison amongst the various categories, the decision and the analysis on the issue of backwardness would only be subjective and not objective.

Learned counsel also raised the point regarding proportionality vis-à-vis adequacy. As submitted, if the OBC population is above 50% in the State, then raising the reservation to the extent of 63% amounts to a breach of the ceiling as prescribed in Indra Sawhney (supra) and several judgments thereafter, including Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil (supra). He also relied upon the Constituent Assembly Debates and the statement of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, wherein he himself referred to the fact that reservation must be confined to a minority of seats.

It is further submitted that neither the 1983 survey nor the 2023 survey fulfills the requirements of law for the reasons as under:

Learned Senior Counsel Sancheti delved deep into the statistics and numericals, although reproduction of all these data is neither practical nor feasible for this Court to reproduce, but certainly it is part of record. However, some relevant data is captured for analysis purpose. However, all statistical data/numerical representation are placed in the synopsis in different volumes at ERP for perusal.

Learned Senior Counsel takes the report in the context of backwardness, while considering three aspects, namely- Education, Social and Economic.

(a). The education data collected by the 2023 study does not indicate any backwardness amongst OBCs. Secondly, the data from the study reveals that OBCs constitute 33.87% of enrollment in higher education. This figure is particularly significant when contrasted with the 14% reservation quota allocated to OBCs. This data unequivocally demonstrates that, in addition to their reservation quota, OBCs are securing approximately 50% of open competition seats. For context, in the State of Madhya Pradesh, a total of 60% of seats are reserved for SC, ST, OBC & 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.

(b). According to the 2023 study, 23.91% of OBC respondents have attained a graduate degree or higher. Out of the total population of Madhya Pradesh, 4.4% of the State's total population is graduate. At the national level, it is 5.6% of the total population. In comparison to 4.4% of the State's total population, OBCs with a graduate or higher degree (23.91%), surpass the State average (4.4%), by a multiple of 5.4% or 540%. It also exceeds the national average of 5.6% by a factor of 4.2% or 420%.

(c). Despite this numerical and significant advancement, the 2023 report erroneously concluded that the educational status of the surveyed OBCs has been found to be extremely weak. This conclusion is contrary to the report and reality.

(d). The Department of Higher Education (Government of India), has conducted a comprehensive and exhaustive study of the higher education scenario in India from 2011-12, and the report by State is published under the title of All India Survey of Higher Education (AISHE). As per AISHE report of 2021-22, overall enrollment in higher education is increased by 77%, in which enrollment of SCs increased by 146%, enrollment of STs increased by 180% and enrollment of OBCs increased by 163%, whereas the enrollment of others increased by only 9%. Therefore, the total share of SC, ST and OBC in higher education has increased from 45% to 60%.

(e). It is further submitted that AISHE data shows that 39% of overall students enrollment in higher education is from OBCs, which is not only well above the 14% reservation already provided to them, but is also well above the 27% reservation provided to them under the Amendment Act.

The BRAUSS Report 2023 adopted an approach which is expressly considered and declared to be unacceptable by the Apex Court, namely, self-perceived backwardness by a body/different class of people.

(a). The questions suggested, as indicated from the said report, reflect that first, only people from the OBC category or class were interviewed and secondly, they were asked questions such as (i) whether there is discrimination based on caste, (ii) whether their caste is considered inferior to other castes, and (iii) whether there is discrimination due to traditional occupation.

(b). Observations and directions of the Apex Court in relation to the aforesaid incorrect approach are clearly spelt out in Ram Singh (supra) (para 55), and Jaishri Patil (supra) (para 551).

(c). As submitted by learned senior counsel, the conclusion and recommendation in the BRAUSS report (brought on record on ERP), also reflects a completely irrational and unscientific approach, which clearly amounts to perversity in law. He illustrated the following aspect to bring home the analogy:

(i). 36.4% OBC responded that they had caste-based occupations, while 64.09% responded that they do not do caste-based occupations. Therefore, the report (post facto report) recommended that since 36% of OBC families believe that their caste or community is considered inferior by members of other castes due to caste-based occupation, therefore, a minimum of 36% reservation for education and services is required. This is perverse finding.

(ii). In the study, 63.76% responded that there is no discrimination based on caste. Still, the report recommended that to remove caste discrimination, 30% reservation is required.

(iii). 62.34% of OBC responded that their caste is not inferior to other castes. Despite the majority of respondents stating that their caste is not considered inferior, the 2023 report recommended that 36.76% of OBC respondents to the survey believed that their caste is considered a lower caste by people of other castes/communities. Therefore, they must get 36% reservation.

(iv). 56.87% responded that there is no discrimination due to their traditional occupation. Despite the majority of the respondents admitting that there is no discrimination, still the report recommended otherwise.

Employment data collected by the 2023 study does not fulfill the extraordinary and exceptional conditions to exceed the 50% limit.

(a). According to secondary data compiled in the 2023 study, around 63.76% of government jobs are garnered by SC, ST & OBC. Out of the three categories, OBC occupied 28.16%, Scheduled Caste 17.58% and ST 17.99% of government positions. This proportion of OBC is demonstrated twice mandating the reservation quota of 14%.

In sum and substance, while relying upon the different judgments passed by the Apex Court in the case of Indra Sawhney (supra), Ashok Thakur (supra), Ram Singh (supra) & Jaishri Patil (supra), Shri Sancheti, Senior Advocate, asserted that the impugned Amendment Act, 2019 for raising reservation to the extent of 27% is arbitrary, manifestly illegal and contrary to the mandate of the Apex Court, and thus liable to be set aside.

Ms. Aparajita Singh, Senior Advocate methodically harped over the law of ceiling of 50% reservation and submitted that it was first articulated by Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly and reiterated in five Constitution Bench judgments after Indra Sawhney (supra). As submitted, Nine-Judge Bench in Indra Sawhney (supra) settled the law of quantum of reservation under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) by holding that it is to be necessarily limited to 50%.

As submitted, in the absence of any standard or benchmark, how can the data in respect of OBC be compared with. In the BRAUSS report, only OBC were surveyed; therefore, the data is incomplete and partial. Self-perceived backwardness is no criterion, as propounded by the Apex Court in the case of Ram Singh (supra).

She refers to Periodic Labour Force Data and the BRAUSS report to submit that it does not represent quantifiable data regarding the Social, Economic and Educational status of OBC and does not provide any ground to breach the 50% ceiling. Learned Senior Counsel refers to different judgments of the Apex Court and different judgments of the High Court to submit that, in absence of contemporaneous data and because of unscientific methodology of data collection, analysis and conclusion, no case is made out for breach of the ceiling.

Through a chart prepared in which the overall criteria as per the Mandal Commission vis-a-vis the BRAUSS, 2023 study report, she referred the shortcomings of the report. Through data relating to representation and Chart, she asserted that extraordinary circumstances do not exist for breach of the ceiling.

Learned Senior Advocate relied upon the judgments as referred to above and submitted that the doctrine of Proportionality is now part of Article 14 jurisprudence. He submits that the object sought to be achieved can not be rationally achieved through the amendment.

In this case, petitioner (Rinku Bhadele) is a member of Scheduled Tribe category, and prime submission of counsel for petitioner was that the scope for an ST candidate to get a seat from the unreserved category is restricted if reservation goes from 14% to 27%. She also refers to the fact that no scientific data was collected before proceeding with reservation to 27%. Respondents/State relied upon a 40 years old report of 1983. OBCs are not Socially and Educationally backward. They are progressing well. Their representation has increased from time to time. In Central Government services, in 2014-15, it was 17.74%, which reached 21.98% in 2022-23. 40% of the Ministers have been from the OBC category in the State Cabinet for 20 years. Five Chief Ministers were from the OBC category. Therefore, they are more than adequately represented. Article 16(4) of the Constitution talks about Adequate Representation and not Proportionate Representation.

Shri Aditya Sanghi, learned Senior Counsel, on the basis of different judgments, including the Constitution Bench judgments, asserted that breach of the ceiling is not permissible in view of the mandate of the Apex Court, which is binding on all Courts in the country. OBCs are adequately represented in Higher Education and Public Services.

Shri Singh, stressed the argument that determination of the legality of enhancement of reservation to distant situations have to be kept separate:

(i). Enhancement which keeps aggregate reservation within 50%.

(ii). Enhancement which takes aggregate reservation beyond 50%.

As submitted, the constitutional tests applicable to these situations are fundamentally different. Where reservation is being increased but aggregate reservation continues to remain within 50%, the State must demonstrate constitutionally permissible compelling reasons, including backwardness and inadequacy of representation, on the basis of relevant quantifiable data as per paragraphs 122 and 123 of M. Nagaraj (supra), which explains the relationship between the ceiling limit and equality of opportunity and the constitutional requirement of maintaining administrative efficiency. According to him, quantified data concerning backwardness and inadequacy of representation may be relevant when determination of reservation is within the permissible Constitutional ceiling.

The fundamental data test operates, once aggregate reservation has already reached 50%. At this stage, merely producing additional data demonstrating backwardness, inadequacy of representation, or population percentage does not justify crossing the ceiling. The State must instead satisfy the exceptional constitutional requirement contained in paragraph 810 of Indra Sawhney (supra).

The submission that OBCs as a class do not satisfy the exceptional test because they do not inhabit far flung and remote territory or they are geographically isolated from remaining population. They are not socially isolated as a consequence of such geographical conditions, and they are not outsider of mainstream of life. Therefore, Amendment Act is bad in law and ultra vires the Constitution.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions raised by the petitioners.

Shri K.M. Natraj, learned Additional Solicitor General appeared on behalf of the State and methodically and persuasively took this Court through the genesis of reservation in favour of the Other Backward Classes (OBC) in the State of Madhya Pradesh. As submitted, on 05-09-1980, the Government of Madhya Pradesh ordered for setting up of a Backward Classes Commission under the Chairmanship of Shri Ramji Mahajan (Mahajan Commission) to look into the Social, Education and Backwardness faced by various communities in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The Mahajan Commission concluded that 35% reservation should be made in favour of the OBCs in both, State Services and admission to the Educational Institutions. He referred the Act of 1994 and the Amending Bill of 1995, which did not receive Presidential Assent and also the annual report 1996–1997 prepared by the Madhya Pradesh Backward Classes Commission (MPBCC), recommending reservation in favour of the OBC from 14 % to 27%. He narrated the course of events as unfolded till filling of writ petitions in detail. However, this course of events has already been narrated in the submissions of the petitioners referred in the preceding paragraphs, therefore they are not repeated herein.

The terms of reference of the Mahajan Commission were as follows:-

On 29th June 1995, the Madhya Pradesh State Backward Classes Commission Act, 1995 (“OBC Commission Act”) was published in the Madhya Pradesh Official Gazette. This led to the establishment of the Madhya Pradesh State Backward Classes Commission (MPBCC) as per Section 3 of the said Act. The MPBCC gave its annual report for 1996–1997 referring the population of the backward classe in the State of M.P. approximately 50% of the total population. It advised that the law should be amended at the State level to increase the reservation in the services from 14 % to 27% for backward classes.

The MPBCC published its annual report as per Section 14 of the OBC Commission Act for 1999–2000. It again reiterated that reservation be raised from 14% to 27%, equal to the reservation made by the Central Government. The MPBCC in its annual report for 2000–2001, reiterated the same demand. The MPBCC till 2009-2010 continued to reiterate the demand for 27% reservation. All these recommendations were prior to the Amendment Act of 2019.

As post facto measure, the State Government constituted a five-member Madhya Pradesh Backward Classes Welfare Commission on 02.09.2021, which undertook a statewide study and made recommendation for 35-36 % for the OBC in Education and in Services.

Shri K. M. Nataraj, learned Additional Solicitor General, also delved into the concept of reservation and refers the case of M. Nagaraj (supra) and submits that formal equality means that the law treats everyone equal and does not favour anyone either because he belongs to the advantaged sections of society or to the disadvantaged sections of society. The concept of "Proportional Equality" expects the State to take affirmative action in favour of the disadvantaged sections of the society within the framework of liberal democracy.

It is submitted that if equality of opportunity guaranteed under Article 16(1) of the Constitution means effective material equality taking into account of the Social, Economic and Educational backgrounds of the members of the SC, ST and OBC, then Article 16(4) is not an exception to Article 16(1). Article 16 is, after all, a facet of the grand principle embraced by the Article 14 of the Constitution. Therefore, reservations are thus not an exception to the rule of equality of opportunity, they are rather the true fulfillment of effective and substantive equality by accounting for the structural conditions into which people are born. He refers the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of B.K. Pavitra and Others Vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2019) 16 SCC 129, para 112 It is further submitted that, in the realm of Article 16(4), opinion of the State is necessary because the State may take an appropriate decision looking to the inadequacy of representation in the services under the State. Therefore, as per the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Ν.Μ. Thomas (supra), B.K. Pavitra (supra), S.V. Joshi (supra) and UP. Power Corpn. (supra), it is submitted that 50% ceiling can be breached because the Constitution does not prescribe watertight compartment of 50% ceiling.

As submitted, basic structure doctrine cannot be a ground for striking down of enactment, but breach of provisions of the Constitution can be a ground. Here, for maintaining adequate representation, the Amendment Act was conceptualized.

It is submitted that list of OBC Communities/Groups is not challenged, and in the Madhya Pradesh, around 383 communities as of now, are under OBC category as per the Mahajan Commission Report.

Learned counsel for the respondents/State further submits that ground for challenging a Statute are limited. A law made by the Parliament or the Legislature can be struck down by the Court on two grounds:

Here, no ground is available to challenge the instant statute except the breach of 50% ceiling as fixed in the case of Indra Sawhney (supra). No enhancement can be struck down by just saying that it is arbitrary. Learned counsel for the respondent/ state refers the case of State of A.P. and Others Vs. Mcdowell & Co. and Others, (1996) 3 SCC 709 in support of his submission as well as judgment of Anjum Kadari and Another Vs. Union of India and Others, (2025) 5 SCC 53.

It is further submitted that law of reservation has been evolved on permissible limits of reservation under the Constitution. While referring Article 15(1) & (4) and the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of M.R. Balaji Vs. State of Mysore, 1963 Supp (1) SCR 439, to bring home the analogy that nothing in this Article 15(4) or Article 29(2) of the Constitution prevents the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of the citizens. Article 15(4) like Article 16(4) is an enabling provisions, it does not impose an obligation, but merely leaves it to the discretion of the appropriate government to take suitable action, if necessary. The minority judgment of the apex court in the case of N.M. Thomas (supra) was also relied upon, wherein breach of ceiling 50% limit was discussed.

He also referred the judgments in the case of Indra Sawhney (supra), M. Nagaraj (supra), Ashok Kumar Thakur (supra) and Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil and supported the impugned action of the State.

As submitted, the judgments passed by the Courts cannot be read as Statute. The observations of the Courts are neither to be read as Euclid Theorem nor as provisions of a statute, and that too, taken out of their context. These observations must be read in the context, in which they appeared to have been stated. Judgments of the Courts are not to be construed as statute, as referred in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta Vs. Alnoori Tobacco Products and Another, (2004) 6 SCC 186 and Sanjay Dubey Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another, (2023) 17 SCC 187.

Before parting, he discussed “Triple C” parameters:

In some of the cases viz. W.P. No.3668/2022, 27335/2026 and 27574/2026, Shri P. Wilson, learned Senior Advocate, appeared on behalf of the interveners and those petitioners, who want 27% reservation. Therefore, effectively Shri Wilson opposed the contention of the petitioners who were against the Amendment Act of 2019.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioners again gone through the social/economic condition prevailing in the state of Madhya Pradesh and the background of constitution of different Commissions and reports submitted therein. As submitted, the key recommendations of Mahajan Commission in respect of Social status, Educational status and Political status of such nature where OBC required reservation to the extent of 27%. A detailed tabular representation is depicted in his synopsis by the counsel for the petitioners, which is part of the record, through which details of recommendations of Mahajan Commissions are represented.

On the basis of said report, it is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that if that report is seen along with the BRAUSS report (2023), then it is clear that data is contemporaneous and empirical. The study is based on primary field data collected from the surveyed OBC respondents across the State. Details of the representation is reflected in BRAUSS report and the same is reproduced by the counsel for the intervener in following manner:-

It is further submitted that ceiling of 50% is not inflexible. The State Government in view to bring social justice, has to consider all the intrinsic factors which are prevalent in the State, which may be unique to the State itself. Following the blanket approach such as the ceiling limit of 50% may contribute to “Social Injustice” instead of “Social Justice”. He refers the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of N. M. Thomas (supra), in which ceiling of 50% was breached.

He also submits that as per the judgment of the Indra Sawhney (supra), 50% is the rule but in extraordinary situations, it can be breached and in the State of Madhya Pradesh, such extraordinary situation exists, which is reflected from different reports submitted from time to time. He also refers OBC population share (48% to 51%), OBC representation in Government Services (1983) by Mahajan Commission - 8.71% overall, OBC representation in Class I post - 9.55% (2021-22) (BRAUSS report) and submits that ceiling can be breached in peculiar fact situations.

As submitted, Constitution is a dynamic document and it must evolve to meet the necessities of contemporary times. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has time and again held that constitutional interpretation must evolve to meet the felt necessities of contemporary times, which may have paradigms never imagined or imaginable by the founding fathers. In support of his submission, he referred the judgments in the cases of Ashok Kumar Gupta (supra) and Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) Vs. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 246.

It is further submitted that the writ petitions challenging the impugned Amendment Act do not establish any ground for challenging the constitutional vires of a legislation. He reiterates the argument that except the lack of legislative competence, as discussed in the case of State of A.P. (supra) para 43, violation of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution or any other constitutional provision, or manifest arbitrariness Act cannot be challenged [See: Shayara Bano Vs. Union of India and Others, (2017) 9 SCC 1 (para 82 & 101)].

The writ petitions challenging the constitutional vires merely rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sawhney (supra), rather than pleading violation of any of the fundamental rights enshrined under Part III of the Constitution. He also relied upon the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Ashwini Kumar Vs. Union of India and Another, (2020) 13 SCC 585.

Another ground raised by the counsel for the petitioners is that in W.P. No.27335/2026 (Smt. Vanmala Rajak and Others Vs. State of M.P. and Others) and W.P. No.27574/2026 (Sachin Yadav and Others Vs. State of M.P. and Others) are the candidates of OBC category and they are falling into the category of 13% withheld post seeking appointment order for the post of Primary/ High School Teachers in accordance with the Circular dated 02.09.2021. Therefore, even if, any decision arises out of the present bunch of writ petitions, can only be prospective and not retrospective. In other words, even if this Court declares the impugned Amendment Act ultra vires to the Constitution, even then such judgment cannot be applied retrospectively because it will create an anomalous situation.

If the 13% posts are awarded to the General/ Open Category candidates, the merit criterion for the Open Category will be reduced. As a result, the reserved OBC candidates, who were selected in their respective reserved category, who now may become meritorious candidates due to such reduction in the cut-off marks, will also be eligible to be appointment under the Unreserved Category. Therefore, modality of the judgment in the present case, could only be prospective and not retrospective, as being extremely difficult and not practically possible.

Shri Shashank Ratnoo, Advocate very methodically and meticulously put across his point. While giving the factual and legislative backdrop of the issue involved, he stressed the empirical foundation of the impugned amendment. It is well settled that the exercise of power under Article 16(4) of the Constitution must be founded on:

While referring to the Ramji Mahajan Commission Report (1983), and the Backward Classes Commission Reports between 1996 to 2001, he stressed over Institutional Continuity and termed the BRAUSS report (2023) as manifestation of facts, which were already there. Therefore, contemporaneous empirical validation is available with the BRAUSS report. According to him, the assessment is cumulative, data is continuous, relative, and unrebutted.

Learned counsel stressed over the fact that actual operation of the 27% reservation regime demonstrates structural inconsistency and arbitrariness. The State has, at different points in time and across different examinations, simultaneously applied divergent reservation frameworks, including:-

The consequence of such fragmented implementation is twofold; first, candidates similarly situated are treated differently depending on the timing or nature of the recruitment process in which they participate; second, the integrity of the selection process itself is compromised by mid-course alterations and shifting criteria.

Learned counsel also raised the point regarding Equality of Law vs. Equality of Facts.

Article 14 guarantees equality before the law. Article 16(1) guarantees equality of opportunity. These provisions, read in isolation, prescribe formal equality - identical treatment for all persons irrespective of their social, educational or economic position. But the Constitution's framers recognised that formal equality applied to persons who are not, in fact, equal perpetuates and deepens inequality. The guarantee of equal treatment becomes, in such circumstances, a guarantee of unequal outcomes. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas, (1976) 2 SCC 310, held - and this position is now settled - that Article 16(4) is not an exception to the equality guarantee; it is the equality guarantee in operation, recognising that substantive equality requires differentiated treatment for groups that are substantively unequal.

The facts of Madhya Pradesh are, with respect, startling. A community comprising 51% of the State's population occupies 8.24% of its government services (Table no. 5.15 @pg 5451, Vol. II). This is not a marginal disparity to be addressed by modest affirmative action. It is a structural exclusion - documented across four decades of institutional inquiry - that represents the precise condition the Constitution's framers sought to remedy. To apply the same standard to MP as was applied in cases where backward class communities constituted smaller, less heterogeneous groups, and to use that standard to deny enhanced reservation, would be to apply equality of law to produce a result that is manifestly unequal in fact.

The reports must be read in this constitutional light. The Mahajan Commission, the Annual Reports, and the BRAUSS Report do not merely satisfy a legal threshold - they reveal a social reality so acute that refusal to act is itself a constitutional choice.

Dr. Ambedkar had, in the Constituent Assembly Debates (Vol. VII, Pg. 701-702; Pg.2-3, Vol. III, CC), in defending the inclusion of the word 'backward' in Article 16(4), remarked that "reservations must be confined to a minority of seats to preserve the rule of equality." To decontextualise this statement and suggest that he envisioned a strict 50% limit would be a gross misinterpretation.

While these arguments may have held in the EWS case, they cannot be put forth now as the inclusion of EWS in the reserved categories has changed the landscape completely. We are now in unique times where every caste, class, and community enjoys the benefit of affirmative action regardless of the historical backwardness suffered by them.

Learned counsel for the petitioners also raised two distinct questions, which according to him, must be addressed separately

Category 1. Whether reservations are justified at all for OBCs in Madhya Pradesh. This is the threshold question of backwardness and inadequacy of representation – whether the exercise of power under Article 16(4) is permissible in the first place.

Category 2. What is the appropriate quantum of reservation – specifically, whether 32% is constitutionally permissible or whether the 14% quantum mandated by the interlocutory stay ought to operate as the ceiling ?

This distinction is not merely structural - it is determinative. On Category 1, the Petitioners have produced no counter-evidence whatsoever. The data establishing OBC backwardness and inadequacy of representation stands uncontested on the record. The Petitioner does not argue - and cannot argue that OBCs in Madhya Pradesh are not backward, or that they are adequately represented in State services. Category 1 is, therefore, settled in favour of the State.

The entire challenge is confined to Category 2 - the extent of reservation. This has crucial implications for the burden of proof, the standard of review, and the relief available to the Petitioner. The Petitioner must demonstrate not merely that 27% is excessive, but that the State's assessment - founded on four decades of institutional data - is unreasonable or perverse. That is an extremely high threshold, and none of the petitioners has come close to meeting.

At the outset, it is crucial to emphasize that the fifty per cent ceiling has been breached by all the reserved categories as a whole, i. e., The Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes, the Other Backward Classes and the Economically Weaker Sections. not just by the OBCs in particular.

As this Hon'ble Court adjudicates on whether a breach of the said 50% ceiling limit is permissible, the fundamental question of what constitutes a breach or who has breached the 50% mark needs to be answered.

The onus of justifying exceptional circumstances has been put only on the shoulders of the Other Backward Classes, even though reasonably such exceptional circumstances need to be and are justified by all SCs, STs, and OBCs.

Learned counsel also raised the objection of judicial review under Article 16(4) and while relying upon the Indra Sawhney (supra), M. Nagraj (supra) and B.K. Pavitra (II) (supra) submits that cumulative effect of these judgments is that judicial review in the matter of reservation is existence based and not sufficiency based. In the present case, empirical foundation is based upon the multiple commission and multiple reports.

It is further submitted that 50% ceiling is a rule of 'Prudence' and not a constitutional embargo and while referring to para 810 of Indra Sawhney (supra) submits that reasoning adopted by the Apex Court does not apply universally. Exceptional circumstances exists in the state of Madhya Pradesh.

An exhaustive synopsis has been submitted by learned counsel in this regard to indicate that extraordinary circumstances exists in the State of Madhya Pradesh to breach the ceiling of 50%.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also stressed over the judgment passed in the case of Janhit Abhiyan Vs. Union of India (EWS reservation), (2023) 5 SCC 1, and submitted that the 50% ceiling has already been breached by the reservation given to the 'EWS Category'. One of the Judges held that ceiling of 50% does not have the trappings of any such essential feature collectively enumerated in the case of Kesavanada Bharti Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461. Post Janhit legal position has changed.

It is further submitted that no mandatory requirement exists for consultation with NCBC; therefore, omission of consultation with the NCBC is not fatal to the validity of the amendment. The quantum of OBC reservation in the State services is a matter within the State's exclusive social policy domain under Article 16(4) r/w Article 34242-A(3) of the Constitution.

So far as alleged drafting defects are concerned, the legislative intent is to be seen and the intent of the Amendment Act, 2019 is unambiguous, therefore, the amendment is to be read in that context.

Learned counsel also raised the point that adequate representation does not mean proportionate representation, but still proportionality remains a relevant indicator of inadequacy, particularly where the proportional deficit is as extreme as it is in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The State has demonstrated inadequacy factually, therefore, the amendment deserves to be saved.

Shri Vinayak Shah, learned counsel appeared in W.P.No.8967/2024 (PIL), W.P. No.22389/2024 and W.P. No.7009/2020. These petitions raised mixed questions, regarding quantum of representation of OBC and regarding EWS reservation etc. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued at length. He refers Section 4 of the Adhiniyam of 1994 as well as GAD Resolutions dated 19.08.1958 and 21.06.1973 and submitted quantum of representation (reservation for SC & ST) is in proportion to their population. However, such reservation proportionate to the population is not available to OBC. According to him, the principle of equality as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution is violated because of two yardsticks adopted; one for OBC and another is for SC/ ST.

While referring to the right to equality guaranteed under Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution, learned counsel raised the point regarding adequate representation. According to him, the word “adequate” is to be interpreted because there is no definition provided in the Constitution about adequate representation.

EWS has already given reservation as vertical reservation, whereas, as per word used in Articles 15(6) and 16(6) of the Constitution, it should be horizontal reservation. Maximum limit has been provided for EWS reservation under Articles 15(6) and 16(6), but no maximum limit has been provide for reservation under Article 16(4) of the Constitution.

Referring to various judgments of the Supreme Court like, N.M. Thomas (supra), Indra Sawhney (supra) and Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil (supra), learned counsel submitted that need for interpretation of the words “any Backward Class of Citizens” as well as the words “not adequately represented” has arisen. According to his submission, doctrine of stare decisis as per Article 141 of the Constitution is tilted in favour of reservation because the uncertainty of law should be removed. He also raised point of distinction between 'Law declared' and 'Law made'. As submitted, the Supreme Court has the power to interpret the Constitution of India, so as the High Court. Therefore, High Court can interpret ceiling limit.

While, invoking the tools of interpretation, he submitted that intention and purpose of any provision or act is to be seen as per well-recognized principles of interpretation and while interpreting a constituent or organic statute, that construction, which is most beneficial to the widest possible amplitude of powers must be adopted. He also refers that intention of the legislature is to be seen, rather than the drafting. Therefore, the statute must be read as a whole and not in a piecemeal.

The Statute must be read as a whole including Preamble, Democracy, Republic, Sovereignty, Justice, Equality of Status and Opportunity, object to establish an Egalitarian Society etc are the concepts must be seen while considering a statue. According to him, in the Constitution, quantum is determined on the basis of population and to make statue effective and workable, it is imperative that proportionate representation should be given.

In support of his submission, he relied upon the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Hindustan Bulk Carriers, M/s Damani and Others reported in (2003) 3 SCC 57. Learned counsel also referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Edukanti Kistamma (Dead) through LRs. and Others Vs. S. Venkatareddy (Dead) through LRs. and Others reported in (2010) 1 SCC 756.

He further submits that interpretation of beneficial legislation ought to be in favour of beneficiaries and not otherwise, as it would be against the legislative intent. Therefore, purposive interpretation or mischief rule of interpretation also also to be seen and for that he referred to several judgments as contained in the synopsis, including the case of Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd Vs. State Of Bihar & Ors., (1955) 1 SCC 763, Kesavananda Bharati (supra) and other decisions.

He referred the background of reservation right from the Jyotiba Phule Report before the Hunter Commission dated 19.10.1882, Government of India Act, 1935, the Miller Committee Report, 1919 in the first round table round conference and Kaka Kalelkar Commission Report etc. and submits that all reveals the necessity of raising of reservation facility from 14% to 27%.

Learned counsel advanced legal submissions, referred different judgments, Means Test, Width Test, and Inversion Test to rhetorically submit that under our Constitution, sovereignty vests in the people and Judges being not representatives of the people, therefore, they must consider the Acts made by the Parliament in that light and therefore, a statute cannot be struck down by reason of the directions of the Supreme Court.

He has gone through contents of different reports and the judgments to substantiate his arguments. Shri Vinayak Prasad Shah referred ancient scriptures including Manusmriti and submits that because of long drawn injustice caused to the backward classes, reservation is mandatory and it should be proportionate. According to him, ratio of a case cannot be deciphered taking one line from here or there.

Shri Rameshwar Thakur, learned Senior Advocate tried to reinvigorate the discussion by making submissions at length that EWS Reservation is for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), but excludes the creamy layer of OBC and therefore, it is a contradiction. 1.5% of Unreserved Category is getting 10% reservation and therefore, EWS reservation should be Horizontal not Vertical. He referred the fact that at present, OBC category has 92 castes in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Earlier, Keer, Meena and Pardi were part of Scheduled Caste. Later on, they are excluded from the SC and are now in OBC category.

He also referred to the historical background of getting reservation and refers the Kaka Kalelkar Commission Report, Mahajan Commission Report and BRAUSS Report to submit that because of the historical reason, reservation has been provided. Adequate reservation means proportionate reservation.

Shri Varun Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner stressed over the interplay of ratio decidendi viz a viz obiter and submits that in Jan Abhiyan case, observation of one of the Hon'ble Judges is obiter dicta about Basic Structure/ EWS reservation. He also referred the judgments of Apex Court in the cases of Arun Kumar Aggarwal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors reported in (2014) 13 SCC 707 and Career Institute Educational Society Vs. Om Shree Thakurji Educational Society reported in (2023) 16 SCC 458. As submitted, 50% ceiling limit is part of Obiter in all judgments.

Mixed with law and rhetoric, learned counsel for the respondents in support of Amendment Act of 2019 argued at length. He referred the law of natural justice and submits that counsel for the petitioners could not point out which fundamental right is breached, therefore, in absence of any such distinction being made out, petitions deserve to be dismissed and validity of the Amendment Act of 2019 deserves to be upheld. He refers the historical wrong committed over OBCs and the purpose of reservation.

He also refers that Dr. B.R. Ambedkar wanted annihilation of caste system and according to him, caste system should be removed and if not removed, then ceiling of 50% should be breached.

It is also submitted that principles of natural justice were violated when OBC parties were not heard in the case of Indra Sawhney (supra). The respondent was the State and not OBC association. He also raised the point of 'Bias' and explained different types of Biases/Prejudices. According to him, the legislature is not bound by the law declared by the Supreme Court of India, and the Court has no power to amend the legislature.

According to him, ratio of a case cannot be decided by taking one line from here or there. He also raised the point that the judgments cannot be interpreted by the Constitutional Courts, they have to interpret the legislation. As submitted, the Court cannot make legislation. It is the domain of legislature. Since the word “adequate' has not been interpreted yet therefore, it is difficult to decipher the meaning of the word “adequate”. Looking to the adversities faced by the members of the OBC community over a long period, it is imperative that reservation be given in proportion to their population.

Shri Vinayak Shah and Shri Uday Sahu, Advocates read out several excerpts of different reports and ancient scriptures including Manusmriti to substantiate their arguments about reservation/proportionate reservation.

It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that 27% reservation is upheld in Indra Sawhney's case (supra) and regarding breach of ceiling, the conclusion as surfaced in para 810 is obiter and not ratio. 50% ceiling limit is judicial limit and there is no bar to legislate beyond 50%. He also referred the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Ashwini Kumar (supra).

Learned counsel also raises the point regarding prospective application of Amendment Act, 2019. According to him, no stay was given in the case, therefore, the posts, which are filled up from the members of reserved category, those appointments be saved because rule of game cannot be changed mid-way.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record, pleadings, documents and respective synopses submitted by them.

"Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains".

Famous opening line of "The Social Contract" written by the Genevan philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, reminds us about Natural Freedom, Societal Chains, and Regulatory Mechanism vis-à-vis human beings. This quote became the battle cry of the French Revolution, and concepts like Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity were reinvented for the modern world. Our Constitution reflects these concepts with added attribute of Justice (Social, Economic, and Political) in Preamble. Equality has been and is perhaps the single greatest craving of all human beings at all points of time.

The Doctrine of Equality has many facets. It is a dynamic and an evolving concept. Its main facets relevant to Indian society have been referred to in the Preamble and the Articles under the sub-heading "Right to Equality" (Articles 14 to 18). In short, the goal is equality of status and of opportunity. Articles 14 to 18 must be understood not merely with reference to what they say, but also in the light of the several articles in Part IV {(Articles 38, 39, 39A, 41, & 46) Directive Principles of State Policy} read with Article 335 of the Constitution of India.

Reservation is part of affirmative action taken by different societies from time to time for bringing marginalized members of the society into mainstream. Affirmative action manifests differently across the globe, depending on a nation's constitutional framework, demographic makeup and unique historical conflicts. Different nations/societies showcase a clear spectrum of approaches ranging from highly restrictive individual policies to legally enforced economic mandate and even soft corporate inclusion models.

In the United States, affirmative action is historically aimed at giving under representative individual a fair shot at the starting line rather than guarantying a specific demographic outcome at the finish line. There, the target groups were primarily African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Native Americans and Women. Methodology used was holistic reviews, expanded outreach and targeted recruitment. However, rigid racial quotas or point system have long been unconstitutional. .

Following the 2023 Supreme Court ruling (Students for Fair Admission Vs. Harward), colleges nationwide are banned from using race as a factor in admission.

South Africa adopts The Hard Target Redressal Model and operates under one of the world's most aggressive and legally enforceable affirmative action model, designed to transition economic control to the black majority, following decades of systemic operation under apartheid. Employment Equity (EE) and Broad -Based Black Economic Empowerment (B-BBEE) are legal instruments for affirmative action.

United Kingdom (UK) adopts “Positive Action” Tie -Breaker Model. Like most of the European Union, the U.K. heavily favours strict anti--discrimination laws and completely outlaws rigid corporate or educational identities quotas which it labels as illegal “Positive Discrimination”. Regulated under the Equality Act, employers are allowed to practice Positive Action. This means a company can proactively run targeted training programme or recruitment drive to encourage under represented demographics (such as women in tech or ethnic minorities) to apply. The Tie-Breaker rule contemplates an employer can only use a protected trait (like race or gender) as a deciding hiring factor if they are choosing two candidates of completely equal merit. It can never be used to hire a less qualified candidate over a more qualified one.

Brazil took a historic step towards racial equity in 2012 by enacting Federal Laws designed to redressed centuries of slavery and deep socio economic division. Law 12,711 (the Quota Law), all federal public universities are legally mandated to reserve at least 50% of their enrollment slots for students who attended public high schools.Within that 50% pool, sub-quotas are proportionally distributed to Black, mixed-race (Pardo), and Indigenous Students based on the local demographics of each State. The government enforces a mandate targeting 30% representation of Black citizens in senior, high-level civil service and decision--making roles.

Canada emphasizes a cooperative approach towards inclusion, focusing on data-transparent reporting rather than enforcing legal penalties. Governed by the "Employment Equity Act", the policy targets four "designated groups": Women, Indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities, and visible minorities. Federally regulated private-sector employers and public institutions have to report their inclusion and they have to create flexible internal hiring plans to bridge the gap.

Broader European Union (EU) and the Netherlands approach equality through a lens of strict merit neutrality, generally favoring merit-blind processes over identity-conscious selections. Referred to as "Positive Action" or "Diversity Management", under Dutch law, prioritizing a candidate based on race, gender, or origin is technically classified as discrimination and is prohibited. However, preferential hiring is legally permitted under very narrow, strict conditions: a company must prove a group is severely under represented, candidates must possess completely equal qualifications, and the policy must be a temporary tie-breaker.

Rather than enforcing quotas on race or immigration status, the Dutch focus heavily on objective, unbiased recruitment infrastructure. Thus, it appears that affirmative action policies vary significantly worldwide, dynamically shaped by unique national histories of exclusion, wrongs, inequality, and legal philosophy.

While the goals remain similar, countries diverge heavily on whether they use strict mandatory quotas or soft, voluntary encouragement. Two contrasting philosophies; (1) The Social Justice Argument (Pro Generation) and (2) The Economic Equality Argument (Pro-Withdrawal/Exit) are most fiercely debated aspect of Affirmative Action Globally.

India, after independence in 1947, decided to adopt affirmative action through reservation. The proceedings of the Constituent Assembly disclose a persistent and strident demand from certain sections of the society for providing reservations in their favor in the matters of public employment. While speaking on the Draft Article 10(3) [corresponding to Article 16(4)], Dr. Ambedkar had stated:

It was this demand which was mainly instrumental for the incorporation of Clause (4) in Article 16. In response to this demand, and also in realization of its obligation to provide for such reservations in favor of backward sections of the society, the Central Government appointed a Backward Class Commission under Article 340 of the Constitution on January 29, 1953. The Commission, properly known as Kaka Kalelkar Commission, was required to investigate the conditions of socially and educationally backward classes within the territory of India and the difficulties under which they labour, and to make recommendations as to the steps that should be taken by the Union or any State to remove difficulties and to improve their conditions.

The Commission was of the opinion that the social position which a community occupies in the caste hierarchy would also have to be considered, as well as its representation in government service.

The Commission submitted its report on March 30, 1955. Commission looked into Social, Economic and Educational backwardness amongst backward classes.

The Chairman of the Commission, Kaka Kalelkar, however, had second thoughts after signing the report. In the enclosing letter addressed to the President, he virtually pleaded for the rejection of the report on the ground that the reservations and other remedies recommended on the basis of caste would not be in the interest of society and country.

The Memorandum of Action appended to the report of the Commission, while placing it on the table of the Parliament as per Article 340(3) on September 3, 1956, pointed out that caste system is the greatest hindrance in the way of our progress to egalitarian society, and that in such a situation, recognition of certain specified castes as backward may serve to maintain and perpetuate the existing distinction on the basis of caste. The Memorandum also found fault with certain tests adopted by the Commission for identifying the backward classes. It expressed the opinion that a more systematic and elaborate basis has to be evolved for identifying the backward classes. Be that as it may. The report was never discussed by the Parliament.

On August 14, 1961, the Central Government wrote to all the State Governments, stating, inter alia, that while the State Governments have the discretion to choose their own criteria for defining backwardness, in view of the Government of India, it would be better to apply Economic Tests than to go by Caste. The letter stated further, rather inexplicably, that even if the Central Government were to specify under Article 338(3), certain groups of people as belonging to “Other Backward Classes,” it will still be open to every State Government to draw up its own list for the purposes of Articles 15 and 16.

In the year 1979, by an order made by the President of India under Article 340 of the Constitution, the Backward Classes Commission was appointed to investigate the conditions of socially and educationally backward classes within the territory of India. This Commission was popularly known as the Mandal Commission. The Commission evolved eleven ‘indicators’ or ‘criteria’ for determining social and educational backward classes. These eleven indicators were grouped under three broad heads, that is, Social, Educational and Economic.

In view of the decision of the Supreme Court limiting the total reservation to 50% (purportedly, judgment of M.R. Balaji and others Vs. State of Mysore and others, AIR 1963 SC 649, and T. Devadasan Vs. Union of India, AIR 1964 SC 179, the Commission recommended 27% reservation in favour of OBCs (in addition to 22.5% percent already existing for SC and ST). Vide Office Memorandum dated 13.08.1990, 27% of vacancies in civil posts and services and under the Government of India were directed to be reserved for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC).

A revised memorandum was issued in 1991, stipulating that within the 27% of vacancies in civil posts and services under the Government of India reserved for SEBC, preference was to be given to candidates belonging to the poorer sections of the SEBC. In case a sufficient number of such candidates were not available, unfilled vacancies were directed to be filled by other SEBC candidates. 10% of vacancies in further civil posts and services under the Government of India were directed to be reserved for other economically weaker sections of society who were not covered by any of the schemes of reservation. Probably, the letter dated 14 August 1961 and the revised memorandum of 1991 apparently laid the foundation of 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections. Later, it was realized by the Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act, 2019, while inserting clause (6) in Article 16.

In hindsight, before Constituent Assembly, during discussion, several members complained that the expressions "backward" and "backward classes" are quite vague and are likely to lead to complications in future. They also suggested that appointments to public services should be made purely on the basis of merit. Some others suggested that such reservations should be available only for a period of the first 10 years of the Constitution.

To this criticism, the Vice-President of the Assembly, Dr.H.C. Mookherjee, replied that:

After the discussion proceeded for some more time, Shri K.M. Munshi, who was a member of the Drafting Committee, rose to explain the content of the word "backward". He said:

Ultimately, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the Chairman of the Drafting Committee, got up to clarify the matter. His speech, which put an end to all discussion and led to the adopting of Draft Article 10(3)[ later Article 16(4)], is worth quoting in extenso since it throws light on several questions relevant herein:

Discussion of Constituent Assembly and statement of Dr. B.R.Ambedkar throw light over the concept of reservation for backward classes and this speech and thought is reiterated and resonated in all the judgments delivered by the Supreme Court of India from time to time in different cases of different aspects of Reservation. Dr. Ambedkar clarified the position that reservation must be confined to a minority of seats. Knowing fully well the import of Articles 14 to 18 (Right to Equality) in its entirety, and trinity of Articles 14, 15, and 16, as referred to by the Apex Court, this statement was made because Dr. Ambedkar further refers the words "then only" as precondition (Minority of Seats) so that the principle could find its place in the Constitution and remain effective in operation. Dr. Ambedkar was aware of Article 335 of the Constitution also. Therefore, Articles 14, 15, 16 are to be seen with Article 335 of the Constitution also.

Conclusions come out clearly from perusal of different modes of Affirmative Actions across the globe and debates of Constituent Assembly that these actions are for specific objects, without undermining efficiency in administration and governance, for limited/minority of seats, temporal in nature and giving sufficient space to merit in major proportion.

Here, question of reservation is not material in a way that petitioners are not aggrieved by the reservation given to Other Backward Classes (OBCs), but are aggrieved only in respect of percentage of reservation because, according to them, it breaches the 50% ceiling prescribed by the Apex Court. However, before proceeding further, relevant Articles are to be seen for bringing clarity to the issue.

Under Part III (Fundamental Rights), Right to Equality is enshrined in Article 14, which appears to be the genus of this Part, of which Articles 15 and 16 are species {See: State of Kerala & Anr. Vs. N.M. Thomas & Ors., (1976) 2 SCC 310}.

Similarly, as decided by the Apex Court, Article 16(4) is not a proviso to Article 16(1). In fact, Article 16(1) is a facet or an elaboration of the principle underlying Article 14. Clause (2) of Article 16 is also an elaboration of a facet of Clause (1) of Article 16. Thus, Article 16(4) is not an exception to Article 16(1), but that it was merely an emphatic way of stating a principle implicit in Article 16(1). Article 16 reads as under:

A perusal of Article 16(4) indicates that backward class of citizens can be given benefit of reservation of appointments or posts if, in the opinion of the State, they are not adequately represented in the services under the State.

To understand whether OBCs are adequately represented in the State of Madhya Pradesh, reliance is placed by the State Government on two reports:

The recommendations made by the State Backward Class Commission in 1996–97, as also in the year 2019–20, are in turn based on the Mahajan Commission Report of 1983 and not based on any fresh collection of data for this purpose. Therefore, at the time of Amendment Act of 2019, only the Mahajan Committee Report of 1983 was existing. The information and the data collected has to be contemporaneous and not outdated, as mandated by the Apex Court in the case of Ram Singh (supra). Relevant extract, para 52 reads as under:

The case of M. Nagaraj (supra) also supports the view that contemporaneous quantifiable data is to be collected for ascertaining backwardness and inadequacy of representation. This aspect has been further expressly considered in the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Jaishri Patil (Paragraphs 16, 462, 464, 470, 477, and 478), where a similar approach adopted by the Backward Class Commission in Maharashtra was held to be an expressly incorrect approach, based on a misreading of the ratio in M. Nagaraj's case.

The time gap between 1983 and 2019 is wide. The population of the State has gone from approximately 5.21 crore (in 1983) to 7.26 crore (in 2011). Meanwhile, the State of Madhya Pradesh has been bifurcated into Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh in the year 2000. Thus, the survey conducted in 1983 cannot be held to be relevant at this point of time. Even otherwise, the composition of the Mahajan Commission consisting of political members, without any subject/domain experts, was contrary to the letter and spirit of the National Commission for Backward Classes Act (NCBC Act) and the Madhya Pradesh State Commission for Backward Classes Act (MPSBC Act). Both Acts contemplate that some non-official members must be subject experts or persons having special knowledge in matters relating to backward classes.

So far as the BRAUSS Report is concerned, it is a post-facto report. Even if this aspect is overlooked because as pointed out by Mr. Shashank Ratnoo that the report is a manifestation of facts already existing, even then, the limited extent of the survey conducted renders the report vulnerable. Around 10,000 people in the entire State were surveyed against a population of 7.26 crore. Thus, the survey is of a very insignificant/minuscule number (0.00014%) and that too, out of 10,000 people, less than 5,000 responded, as argued by Shri Sancheti, Senior Advocate.

If 10,000 people are surveyed that too only of OBC category then it is also a step contrary to the mandate of Apex Court where wide range of surveys are contemplated including all sections of society to bring comparative study in discussion. Here, only OBC people were surveyed therefore, comparative study is the remote possibility.

While discussing numerical or statistical representation we have to keep in mind that officially no caste census has been held in post Independence era in State of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, exact population of all categories is tentative and approximate.

It is worth mentioning the fact that since 2003, the State of Madhya Pradesh has four Chief Ministers from the OBC community and nearly a quarter of the century is ruled by OBC leadership. More than 25% of Ministers and MLAs are from the OBC category. The important aspects of Education, Social and Economic viz-a-viz State of M.P. are considered below:

(a). The education data collected by the 2023 study does not indicate backwardness amongst OBCs. The data from the study reveals that OBCs constitute 33.87% of enrollment in higher education. This figure is particularly significant when contrasted with the 14% reservation quota allocated to OBCs. This data unequivocally demonstrates that, in addition to their reservation quota, OBCs are securing approximately 50% of open competition seats. For context, in the State of Madhya Pradesh, a total of 60% of seats are reserved for SC, ST, OBC & 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.

(b). According to the 2023 study (BRAUSS report), 23.91% of OBC respondents have attained a graduate degree or higher. Out of the total population of Madhya Pradesh, 4.4% of the State's total population is graduate. At the national level, it is 5.6% of the total population. In comparison to 4.4% of the State's total population, OBCs with a graduate or higher degree (23.91%), surpass the State average (4.4%), by a multiple of 5.4% or 540%. It also exceeds the national average of 5.6% by a factor of 4.2% or 420%.

(c). Despite this numerical and significant advancement, the 2023 report erroneously concluded that the educational status of the surveyed OBCs has been found to be extremely weak. This conclusion is contrary to the AISHE report and the reality.

(d). The Department of Higher Education (Government of India), has conducted a comprehensive and exhaustive study of the higher education scenario in India from 2011-12, and the report by State is published under the title of All India Survey of Higher Education (AISHE). As per AISHE of 2021-22, overall enrollment in higher education is increased by 77%, in which enrollment of SCs increased by 146%, enrollment of STs increased by 180% and enrollment of OBCs increased by 163%, whereas the enrollment of others increased by only 9%. Therefore, the total share of SC, ST and OBC in higher education has increased from 45% to 60%.

(e). It is further submitted that AISHE data shows that 39% of overall students enrollment in higher education is from OBCs, which is not only well above the 14% reservation provided to them, but is also well above the 27% reservation provided to them under the Amendment Act.

The BRAUSS Report 2023 adopted an approach which is expressly considered and declared to be unacceptable by the Apex Court, namely, self-perceived backwardness by a body/different class of people.

(a). The questions suggested, as indicated from the said report, reflect that first, only people from the OBC category or class were interviewed and secondly, they were asked questions such as (i) whether there is discrimination based on caste, (ii) whether their caste is considered inferior to other castes, and (iii) whether there is discrimination due to traditional occupation.

(b). Observations and directions of the Apex Court in relation to the aforesaid incorrect approach are clearly spelt out in Ram Singh (para 55), and Jaishri Patil (para 551).

(c). As submitted by learned senior counsel Shri Sancheti, the conclusion and recommendation in the BRAUSS report (brought on record on ERP), also reflects a completely irrational and unscientific approach (which clearly amounts to perversity in law). He rightly illustrated the following aspects to bring home the analogy:

(i). 36.4% OBC responded that they had caste-based occupations, while 64.09% responded that they do not do caste-based occupations. Therefore, the report (post facto report) recommended that since 36% of OBC families believe that their caste or community is considered inferior by members of other castes due to caste-based occupation, therefore, a minimum of 36% reservation for education and services is required.

(ii). In the study, 63.76% responded that there is no discrimination based on caste. Still, the report recommended (ignoring 63.76% figure) that to remove caste discrimination, 30% reservation is required.

(iii). 62.34% of OBC responded that their caste is not inferior to other castes. Despite the majority of respondents stating that their caste is not considered inferior, the 2023 BRAUSS report recommended that 36.76% of OBC respondents to the survey believed that their caste is considered a lower caste by people of other castes/communities. Therefore, they must get 36% reservation.

(iv). 56.87% responded that there is no discrimination due to their traditional occupation. Despite the majority of the respondents admitting that there is no discrimination, still the report recommended otherwise. This is apparently self perceived backwardness more, than reality.

Employment data collected by the 2023 (BRAUSS Report) study does not fulfill the extraordinary and exceptional conditions to exceed 50% limit.

(a). According to secondary data compiled in the 2023 study, around 63.76% of government jobs are garnered by SC, ST & OBC. Out of the three categories, OBCs occupied 28.16%, Scheduled Caste 17.58% and ST 17.99% of government positions. This proportion of OBC is demonstrated twice mandating the reservation quota of 14%.

All the data as referred above is based upon the BRAUSS Report 2023 and/or data provided by counsel for petitioners, especially Shri Pradeep Sancheti, Senior Advocate. Incidentally, respondents did not raise dispute about the statistical figures given by the counsel for petitioners.

However, from the online sources, certain facts and figures reveal a picture totally otherwise as presented by respondents. A tabular representation is given herein below to demonstrate how OBCs are adequately represented, and they are forwarded to such extent where they are not only exhausting their own quota of reservation but are standing in merit lists of different services over and above general/unreserved candidates. Therefore, they are getting themselves placed in general category and exhausting the seats from general category candidates. The facts referred above can be seen from another perspective. Admittedly, the total extent of reservation nowadays is 60% after the inclusion of 10% EWS. Therefore, a person falling under the unreserved general category and who is not in EWS gets 40% of the total seats (minority seats). Out of those 40% seats, OBC candidates (even SC candidates) at times, stand in the merit list and, in such a situation, take seats from the general/unreserved category, because they score more marks than the cut-off marks for general/unreserved category candidates. In that condition, they take up seats of general category/unreserved candidates also. Therefore, their total representation goes beyond 27%. A tabular representation is given herein below:-

S.No MP high court Total Total Meritori Total OBC Total UR Exam Name Seats no. of ous Selected in Selected filled OBC/SC total up /ST Number of seats Selected seats in UR in UR seats

01 English 28 stenographer UR-14 OBC-03 07 10 (HC) 2015 Obc-04 All SC- 01 SC-05 ST-05

02 Stenographer 53 Grade -2 UR-21 All OBC-10 18 08 (District Court) OBC-08 SC- 01 year 2015 SC-05 ST-02 ST-19

03 Civil Judge 96 Class-2 (entry UR-27 All OBC- 20 23 level) exam - OBC-18 02 2015 SC-16 SC- 02 ST-35

04 EPABX Only 01 OBC-01 01 00 Operation All URin Exam 2016 waiting List

05 Assistant Grade 50 All OBC-08 15 12 3 (HC) exam - UR- 25 SC-03 2016 OBC-07 SC-08 ST-10

06 07 Translator - UR-04 02 OBC-01 02 01 2016 OBC-01 Topper SC-01 is OBC ST-01 categor y

07 101 Civil Judge UR-51 OBC-04 18 46 Class-2 exam - OBC-14 All SC-01 2016 SC-16 ST-20

Data reveals that, at times, around 70% to 75% of seats are occupied by SC / ST/ OBC/ EWS candidates, and general category candidates have to satisfy themselves with 20% to 25% of seats only. Data, prima facie, indicates that OBCs are securing 14% seats through their reservation quota and, at times, 15% to 20% from the open competition. Reservation sought by them is 27%, but they are achieving an access in public services, more than 27%. Therefore, the very foundation on which OBCs claim reservation expansion from 14% to 27% comes under doubt. In fact they are adequately represented.

The tables referred to above indicates Class III (Ministerial/Secretarial), Class II (Civil Services/Engineering/Police Services), Civil Judges, and Collegiate Services (Assistant Professor, etc.). Even the data referred above indicates that percentage of OBCs with graduate or higher degree (23.91%), surpass the State average (4.4%), by a multiple of 5.4% or 540%. It also exceeds the national average of 5.6% by a factor of 4.2% or 420%. This data is illustrative in nature. Therefore, BRAUSS report is rendered vulnerable because it only surveyed 10,000 OBC people and it did not take care of other classes to reach to just and proper conclusion.

The position of a person is always comparative and not absolute. Looking to the overall socio-economic condition of State of Madhya Pradesh, the data in respect of the OBCs is not only encouraging but infact overwhelming.

That data, coupled with the fact that State is politically dominated by OBCs, with four CMs 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 field. 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.

Even otherwise, reservation is not an issue. What is in issue is the extent of reservation. If the extent of reservation is excessive, then it makes an inroad into the principle of equality under Article 16(1). Extent of reservation, as stated above, will depend on the facts of each case. Backwardness and inadequacy of representation are compelling reasons for the State Governments to provide representation in public employment not otherwise. Not on the basis of proportionate representation. Therefore, if in a given case the court finds excessive representation under the State Enactment then such an Enactment would be liable to be struck down since it would amount to derogation of the constitutional requirements.

Article 335 of the Constitution of India deals in respect of claims of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to services and posts. It further contemplates claims of the members of SC/ST to be taken into consideration, consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration, in the making of appointments to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State. This aspect, right from Constituent Assembly Debates to different pronouncements of the Apex Court from time to time, is stressed over (efficiency in administration) while discussing the issue of reservation from time to time. Some excerpts of Constituent Assembly debates are already discussed earlier.

In M.R. Balaji’s case, it has been held by the Constitution Bench in the following manner:-

In T. Devadasan (supra) the Apex Court discussed the 50% ceiling on reservation, adequate representation under Section 16(4) and efficiency in administration under Article 335, vis-à-vis equality under Article 14. Relevant extract reads as under:

The Hon’ble Apex Court in General Manager, Southern Railway Vs. Rangachari, AIR 1962 SC 36 laid down the law as under:

The Hon’ble Apex Court in N.M. Thomas (supra) further laid down the law as under:

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the M. Nagaraj (supra) discussed the efficiency of the State administration in the following manner:

The Hon’ble Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Thakur (supra) discussed in following manner:-

The Hon’ble Apex Court in Jarnail Singh (supra) affirmed the similar principles which reads as under:

In the Constituent Assembly, Dr. Ambedkar referred to reservation for a minority of seats. Incorporation of Article 335 and the nexus of different judgments of the Apex Court on efficiency of administration make it imperative that persons of brilliance and perseverance (from SC/ST/OBC/EWS/UR) be given a sky to soar and flutter high in the sky. Uncaged and unchained. Otherwise, the quote of Rousseau (referred above) haunt them and frustrate their aspirations, ambitions and amelioration. This sky should be made available to all categories of candidates without any restriction to express themselves.

Today, the modern world is witnessing the biggest disruptors like Artificial Intelligence, Climate Change, Mental Health, Hydrogen Fuel, Space Exploration, Machine Learning, Quantum Computing, Water Scarcity, Energy Management, and Alternative Sources of Energy, to enlist a few. These challenges are not only Civilizational, but even Existential in nature. When the world is whisking fast with technological maneuvering, then efficiency in administration (which includes Innovation/Technological Advancements/good governance) assumes importance. Constitution is a dynamic document, and its provisions has to be seen from the vantage point of the time in which we are living and challenges we (as humanity) are facing.

In the Constituent Assembly debates, Dr. Ambedkar himself clarified that reservation shall be for a minority of seats so as to maintain efficiency in administration and to give merit a chance to flourish. For the first time, the Constitution Bench in M.R. Balaji (supra) prescribed the ceiling of 50% which reads as under:

However, later on, in N.M. Thomas (supra), minority opinion of Hon'ble Shri Justice Fazal Ali and Hon'ble Shri Justice Krishna Iye ( as they then were) raised doubt over ceiling of 50%. However, in T. Devadasan (supra), this ceiling of 50% was maintained.

Then comes Indra Sawhney, a Nine-Judge Bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, which clarified the position once and for all. Although the celebrated and opt quoted paragraph is 810, but to get a better perspective, it is imperative that earlier paragraphs be also incorporated to bring home the analogy logically and convincingly:

Preceding paragraphs make it clear that reservation of majority of seats was never envisaged by the Founding Fathers, nor Constitution Bench was satisfied that the present context requires them to depart from that concept. Paragraph 809 in categorical terms mandates that the irresistible conclusion that follows is the reservation contemplated in clause (4) of Article 16 should not exceed 50%. Selection of words in paragraphs 808, 809, and 810 establishes the spirit/ratio of the order for fixing ceiling of reservation up to 50%.

Yes, ceiling can be broken, but under extraordinary situations inherent in the great diversity of this country and the people. Above mentioned paragraphs refer so. Some relaxation “may” become imperative. It means sufficient discretion is given, whereas while fixing ceiling of 50%, word "shall"/"should" is used. This indicates that no scope is left for interpretation of one's liking.

In Madhya Pradesh on the basis of discussion made above, no such exigency or extraordinary situations exist to exceed 50% reservation. In the case of Jaishri Patil (supra), reliance over paragraph 810 is made, and even the prayer for referring the matter to a Larger Bench was declined. This indicates that Constitution Bench consider 50% ceiling limit as sacrosanct (more or less).

In Jaishri Patil (supra) it is referred that Indra Sawhney (supra) has been followed in four Constitution Bench Judgments:

The judgment in Jaishri Patil (supra) settled the position further and reiterated the ceiling of 50% in categorical terms. After this judgment, it is established again that the ceiling of 50% for reservation cannot be breached. The said judgment also looked into the extent of judicial review by the Constitutional Court in the context of safeguards for protecting the fundamental right of equality and to safeguard against the attempts to undermine the same. The said judgment traced the law while referring to various judgments, including in the Barium Chemicals case.

Therefore, the 50% ceiling limit cannot be breached in any manner, and/or at least no such case is made out regarding backwardness of OBCs, Inadequacy of Representation, and Educational/Social/Economic status to suggest Affirmative Actions like reservation to the extent of 27% to the OBCs for the State of Madhya Pradesh.

Learned counsel for the respondent raised the point of ratio vis-a-vis obiter to bring home the analogy that observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Indra Sawhney (supra) in para 810 are to be treated as obiter. However, those observations are very much part of the discussion and constitute ratio; they are not obiter. A specific question was framed in Indra Sawhney (supra) as Question No.6, and the same has been answered in specific terms. While answering the said question, para 810 was declared by Constitution Bench as law of the land regarding ceiling limit of 50%.

Later on, Jaishri Patil (supra) again discussed the issue in detail. Specific submission regarding reference to a larger bench was denied by the Apex Court, and the Apex Court maintained the ratio of the judgment rendered in the case of Indra Sawhney (supra).

Several High Courts—Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Bihar, Andhra Pradesh, Bombay, Gujrat, etc. have already discussed this issue and thereafter declared breach of the ceiling of 50% as unconstitutional and set aside the attempt of State Governments to raise the quota from 50% to some more percentage.

In case of Jaishri Patil (supra), one argument taken was that the population of backward classes is 85% and reservation upto 50% limit only would be disproportionate. However, said argument is repelled by the Constitution Bench while holding that proportionate representation cannot be given, only adequate representation can be given. In the present case also, the State Government has made out a case only for adequate representation within the ceiling limit of 50% and not beyond that. No proportionate representation can be given.

In case of Jaishri Patil, it has been held as under:

It is well settled that adequate representation in Article 16(4) does not mean proportionate representation In Jarnail Singh (supra), this principle was explained as under:

Backwardness and inadequate representation are factors to be considered for the grant of reservations to the extent of 50%. However, beyond 50%, if reservation is to be given, then extraordinary circumstances must exist. In the present case, no such extraordinary circumstances existed to justify breach of the 50% ceiling limit.

The 102^nd Amendment Act was introduced on 15.08.2018. It, inter alia, introduced Article 338B and set up the National Commission for Backward Classes as a constitutional body. As per Article 338B(9), the Union and every State Government are required to consult the Commission on all major policy matters affecting Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs). Main reason for the introduction of NCBC was to ensure a permanent body which would objectively, without being pressured by the dust and din of electoral politics, consider the claims of inclusions based on scientific and objective criteria.

The 105^th Amendment Act was introduced on 15.09.2021, incorporating Article 342A and inserting a proviso in Article 338B (9). Proviso to Article 338B (9) reads as under:

Clause (3) was introduced in Article 342A(3). It reads as under:-

While the proviso does not mandate consultation with the NCBC by the State for preparation and maintenance of the list of OBCs for the State, the requirement to consult the Commission for all other major policy matters continues.

This would include the issue of providing OBC reservations over and above the 50% ceiling limit. The NCBC ought to have been consulted on the question whether extraordinary circumstances as stated in paragraph 810, Indra Sawhney (supra), existed to breach the 50% ceiling or not.

Apex Court in Pattali Makkal Katchi (supra), held that disregarding the mandatory consultation would be fatal:

Therefore, on this count also, M.P. Ordinance No.2 of 2019 as well as the Amendment Act 2019, lacks preparedness and passed in undue haste. This reason may (or may not) have been conclusive to strike down the Act, but coupled with the discussion made above, the Amended Act of 2019 appears to have been made in utter haste to the extent where certain drafting errors crept into it. Although Legislative intent is to be seen when the validity of an Act is seen, however, such drafting errors indicate the undue haste and ill-preparedness on the part of the respondents.

Cumulatively, a case for interference is made out, and the M.P. Ordinance No.2 of 2019 as well as the Amendment Act of 2019, which raises the percentage of reservation from 14% to 27% to the members of OBC category, is declared ultra vires to the constitutional provisions and contrary to the ceiling limit of 50% as fixed by the Supreme Court of India in Indra Sawhney (supra) and later on reiterated in Jaishri Patil (supra) in specific terms.

Resultantly, the Amendment Act is declared ultra vires to the Constitution and is hereby struck down.

If any appointments have been made pursuant to the Amendment Act of 2019, especially before the interim order is passed, then what would be the fate of the candidates who were recruited earlier, would be the question.

In the present case, after filing of the writ petitions in respect of medical students, admission as per the Amendment Act of 2019 was stayed, but not the appointments made in different services. It appears from the proceedings that the original stay order was passed on 19.03.2019, but it is clarified vide order dated 31.01.2020. Thereafter, the State Government vide GAD order dated 29th September 2022 clarified that total appointments shall be made to the extent of 87%, and candidates for the remaining 13% from both categories (Unreserved as well as OBC) would be selected, but their list shall not be declared. That list would be subject to final outcome of the petitions. The order dated 29th September, 2022, issued by GAD can be the bottom line from where the amendment had to lose its relevance and effect. Normally, when any Act is declared unconstitutional, then it is applied retrospectively but taking reliance from the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao (supra), the appointments made before the order dated 29^th September, 2022, can be saved. Relevant discussion is in paragraphs 167, 168, and 169 which reads as under:

Said judgment was relied upon recently by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of The Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. v. M. Rama Rao & Ors., SLP (Civil) No.34255-34256/2015. Placing reliance upon the Constitution Bench judgment delivered in Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao (supra) as well as in the case of M. Rama Rao (supra), in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, where prior to the order dated 29.09.2022, certain appointments must have been made by the Recruiting Agencies, viz. M.P. Public Service Commission (M.P.P.S.C.) or Employees’ Selection Board, of members of the OBC category on the basis of reservation of 27% instead of 14%. The additional 13% appointments of candidates of OBC category, if any, made prior to 29.09.2022, shall be saved.

After 29.09.2022, if any appointments are made more than 14% for OBC candidates, they shall be treated as null and void (in excess of 13%) and these appointments shall have to go. In their place 13% unreserved category candidates shall be given appointment. Concerned selection agencies viz. MPPSC or Employees’ Selection Board or any other agency shall have to declare result henceforth. All the writ petitions preferred by the petitioners challenging the Amendment Act, 2019, are allowed. The Amendment Act, 2019, is struck down. The remaining petitions which were filed for additional reservation for OBC plus EWS reservation and Horizontal Reservation, etc., shall be treated as decided as dismissed in view of this order.

We may summarize thus as under:-

Before parting, we record our appreciation and indebtedness to the valuable assistance rendered by all learned counsel appeared in all these cases and enlightened us with their erudition and articulation. Their oral submissions and written synopses were source of valuable assistance to us. We also record our appreciation to the hard work and assistance rendered by our Law Researchers and stenographers for preparation of this order. Hearing of this case was an enlightening experience.