Madhya Pradesh's pursuit of a 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in state government jobs and educational institutions has become a focal point of legal and social contention, marked by daily hearings in the Supreme Court and significant complications. The core issue revolves around a 2019 law that sought to increase the OBC quota from 14% to 27%, a move challenged for breaching the 50% reservation ceiling established by the Supreme Court in the Mandal Commission case in 1992.
The Supreme Court has taken up the matter, with daily hearings scheduled to begin on October 8, 2025, after transferring approximately 70 related petitions from the Madhya Pradesh High Court for a comprehensive resolution. The urgency stems from the fact that the law's implementation has been stalled, leaving numerous job aspirants in limbo.
Arguments for the 27% OBC Quota
The Madhya Pradesh government defends the increased quota by asserting that OBCs constitute a substantial portion of the state's population, exceeding 51% according to the 2011 Census. Including Scheduled Castes (SCs) at 15.6% and Scheduled Tribes (STs) at 21.1%, the state argues that disadvantaged communities collectively comprise over 87% of the population. The government contends that the previous 14% reservation for OBCs was disproportionately low compared to their demographic share and their social and educational backwardness. The enhancement to 27% is thus viewed as a necessary corrective measure.
The state relies on the argument that "special circumstances" warrant exceeding the 50% ceiling, citing the "entrenched and multi-dimensional backwardness" faced by OBCs. This includes social, educational, economic, and political disadvantages that hinder their ability to compete with more privileged groups. The government's affidavit highlights that OBCs have negligible representation in higher state services and face pervasive caste discrimination.
The Madhya Pradesh government also refers to the Mahajan Commission, which had recommended a 35% reservation for OBCs in 1980. While the 1994 Reservation Act initially provided only 14%, subsequent reports from the Madhya Pradesh Backward Classes Commission between 1996 and 2001 advocated for an increase to between 27% and 35%. The state also argues that the Supreme Court has, in past judgments, allowed exceptions to the 50% ceiling in cases demonstrating special circumstances.
Complications and Challenges
The primary complication is the Supreme Court's established 50% ceiling on reservations, set in the Indira Sawhney case. Increasing the OBC quota to 27%, combined with existing reservations for SCs and STs, would raise the total reservation to 73% when including the 10% quota for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS). This directly contravenes the 50% limit, potentially making the law unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court has previously expressed reservations about exceeding the 50% limit, emphasizing that it should only be breached in extraordinary circumstances. It remains to be seen whether the court will accept Madhya Pradesh's argument that the situation of OBCs in the state constitutes such an exceptional case.
A further complication arose when the Madhya Pradesh High Court issued an interim order in 2022, restraining the state from providing OBC reservations beyond 14%. Although there was no direct stay on the 2019 Act itself, the government's subsequent adoption of an 87-13% formula created further ambiguity and stalled recruitment processes.
During proceedings, the Supreme Court has also expressed its frustration with the delays in the case, even reprimanding the Madhya Pradesh government and nodal counsel for seeking more time. The court has stressed the need for a strict timeline and readiness for daily hearings, indicating its desire for a swift resolution.
The outcome of the Supreme Court's hearings will have significant implications for OBCs in Madhya Pradesh and potentially set a precedent for reservation policies in other states. The court's decision will determine whether the state can provide enhanced reservations to OBCs, addressing their historical disadvantages, or whether the 50% ceiling will remain a strict constitutional bar.
